I heard this depressing story on the radio today....

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20191126/life-expectancy-shrinks-for-americas-working-age-adults#1

TUESDAY, Nov. 26, 2019 (HealthDay News) -- Despair, as evidenced in rising rates of drug abuse and suicide, may be eroding the average life expectancy of Americans, a new study finds.

Deaths among working-age adults, especially, have been increasing in the United States for decades, particularly in economically struggling parts of the nation such as the "Rust Belt" and Appalachia, the researchers reported.

These early deaths are causing average life expectancy to decline in the United States. U.S. life expectancy dropped between 2014 and 2017, even while citizens in more than a dozen other industrialized nations continue to enjoy ever-longer lives.

The U.S. trend is being driven not just by the widely publicized "deaths of despair" -- drug overdoses, alcoholism and suicide -- but also by a diverse list of diseases affecting organs throughout the body, said lead researcher Dr. Steven Woolf. He's director emeritus of the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine's Center on Society and Health.

The root cause of all this illness and death could be economic stress. Woolf and his colleagues suspect that the decline of the middle class in America is contributing to an average shorter lifespan across the country.

"It might turn out that investment in the middle class, and helping to bring jobs and economic development to those communities, might do more to save lives than adding another wing onto the hospital," Woolf said.

Average U.S. life expectancy stood at 78.6 years in 2017, down from a peak of 78.9 in 2014, the researchers said in background notes.

The increase in working-age death rates has tracked closely with major shifts in the U.S. economy dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, when the country began to lose manufacturing jobs and the middle class started shrinking, Woolf said. The largest relative increases in midlife mortality rates have occurred in the Ohio Valley (West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky) and in northern New England (New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont), according to the researchers' analysis of federal data.

"In our analysis, we estimated how many excess deaths occurred in the United States due to this problem between 2010 and 2017," Woolf said. "One-third of those deaths occurred in those four states in the Ohio Valley."

Thankfully, Dr. Woolfe is an expert so we don't have to listen to a word he says.

What is interesting is that this is a trend that is cutting across ethnic and economic lines. Therefore, it isn't just poor people in the old Rust Belt. They were hit the hardest, but are not the only ones. The other interesting note is that the number of deaths amongst "Young Adults" is rising since 2010.

So many things to think about with this article. However, it could help relieve the "strain" on Social Security! Wakka, wakka, wakka!

I have a hard time seeing how this will not end up as either a political discussion, which ist verboten, or meaningless discussion because everyone is trying to skirt the politics ban.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I have a hard time seeing how this will not end up as either a political discussion, which ist verboten, or meaningless discussion because everyone is trying to skirt the politics ban.

welche verboten ist* pls

Also, yes this would probably lead rather soon into politics except of course you'd keep the discussion to the socio economical level and of course would discuss counter proposals to the situation at hand.
F.e. Decentralized economic development planning. Economic rebalancing of weaker states. General improvementof infrastructure. etc.

I have been assuming I'd never get anything from Social Security ever and my retirement plans don't factor in any money from that. I have a mix of stuff going on - I have a cash benefit plan from my job, a decent 401K, and personal investments. The house is also paid off so upkeep should be pretty minimal.

Although, as this article points out, suicide is always an option if it gets tight!

Financially I've done better than my parents by a long shot, but I got lucky and happened to train in a field that would up being in demand. I don't think "doing better than your parents did" is the normal expectation in the US anymore, sadly.

The whole matter has a large political component. Simply put, the situation that causes this despair is a direct result of people's voting (or non-voting) habits.

So, any hypothesis on why the death rate among Young Adults is growing faster in the 2000's than anytime since WWII?

 Easy E wrote:
So, any hypothesis on why the death rate among Young Adults is growing faster in the 2000's than anytime since WWII?

It's almost certainly social media, right? Young adults are engaging in less risky behavior (drugs, drinking, unprotected sex), while social media is a completely radical shift in how we interact with the world.

 Polonius wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So, any hypothesis on why the death rate among Young Adults is growing faster in the 2000's than anytime since WWII?

It's almost certainly social media, right? Young adults are engaging in less risky behavior (drugs, drinking, unprotected sex), while social media is a completely radical shift in how we interact with the world.

Are those "young adult death increase" stats exclusive to the USA? As far as I know life expectancy is not decreasing to such a degree in other developed countries. If somebody has the data in an useful and linkable format feel free to link it here. Because if those deaths are only reducing life expectancy in the USA while it stays the same (or increase) in other (developed) countries then I'd say social media is probably not to blame (on its own). Over here in Europe we have social media too.

What about the rising cost (beyond inflation) of medical procedures and insurance in the USA? I read depressingly often about people in the USA who can't afford insulin (also other otherwise cheap drugs) because companies have increase the price to a ridiculous amount. Would not being able to pay for your health while your wages stay relatively stagnant be an possible reason for why more people are dying at a younger age in the USA while it's not happening at the same rate in other developed countries where wages are less directly coupled to your "healthcare potential"?

Related questions: Why is that change only happening in the 00s? Has the cost of medical care increase faster in the 00s and/or has the 2008 financial crisis led to even worse wage stagnation so that average people could afford even less healthcare? Is there any data on that?

I do remember some stats about how the introduction of the ACA led to about 3000 fewer people dying per month (in the USA, not worldwide). Although I also read about that maybe not being 100% because it's hard to quantify if that's the only reason why.

 Easy E wrote:
So, any hypothesis on why the death rate among Young Adults is growing faster in the 2000's than anytime since WWII?

Student loans? No, seriously it's a big problem. The debt most millennials have from going to college is ridiculous. Many are bankrupt.
I actually have a really good job, far better than anything my parents ever had, but I will never be able to afford a house

And yes, health care is stupid silly in the US. Many people go without because it cost too much. I'd suspect that plays a big part too

-

Opiate crisis.
Reminds me off Zürich, we had the heroin wave some time ago.

Mario wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So, any hypothesis on why the death rate among Young Adults is growing faster in the 2000's than anytime since WWII?

It's almost certainly social media, right? Young adults are engaging in less risky behavior (drugs, drinking, unprotected sex), while social media is a completely radical shift in how we interact with the world.

Are those "young adult death increase" stats exclusive to the USA? As far as I know life expectancy is not decreasing to such a degree in other developed countries. If somebody has the data in an useful and linkable format feel free to link it here. Because if those deaths are only reducing life expectancy in the USA while it stays the same (or increase) in other (developed) countries then I'd say social media is probably not to blame (on its own). Over here in Europe we have social media too.

This is US only data. In fact, in other comparable parts of the world, the opposite trends are happening.

Almost as if gaking on the heads of the non-wealthy leads to problems.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Almost as if gaking on the heads of the non-wealthy leads to problems.

Or the sole concentration on Centers whilest ignoring the periphery.

So, at 37, I'll start pulling a pension, with somewhere around $85k in a 401k.

I'll then start a second career, hopefully one that provides a pension as well, but if not, I'll get a Roth going with that one.

At any rate, I'm fairly comfortable with my future prospects of true retirement.

 djones520 wrote:
So, at 37, I'll start pulling a pension, with somewhere around $85k in a 401k.

I'll then start a second career, hopefully one that provides a pension as well, but if not, I'll get a Roth going with that one.

At any rate, I'm fairly comfortable with my future prospects of true retirement.

Assuming, of course, that Congress doesn't pull the plug on those pensions....

The US? Turning its back on people who served honorably?

Surely you jest, sir.

Comparing international life expectancy is meaningless anyway. Every nation has a slightly different way to calculate both infant mortality and life expectancy, so in the end it is a major apples to oranges comparison. If everyone would simply use the UN standards it would help out quite a bit. The US actually has quite broad definitions compared to other countries which makes our life expectancy look a little lower comparatively.

But others aren't dropping while yours are. Compared to your own definitions you're worse off, while other comparable countries are not worse off compared to their own standards.

Unless the US standards have changed over time, obviously.

 Ouze wrote:
The US? Turning its back on people who served honorably?

Surely you jest, sir.

TBF what country hasn't done that? Crapping on the heads of your own people is like a coming-of-age ceremony for countries; you aren't a real country unless you have.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The US? Turning its back on people who served honorably?

Surely you jest, sir.

TBF what country hasn't done that? Crapping on the heads of your own people is like a coming-of-age ceremony for countries; you aren't a real country unless you have.

Erm, does the contrary also count ? Or are we now the new denmark meme?

Ahhhh retirement.

Once a promise, now increasingly a pipe dream. UK State Pension is pretty low, but I’ve a decent private pension through work (one of the safest in the UK, and work pay in 12% of my wage every month, without costing me a penny. And they’ll match it up to a further 3%.

Best thing? Should I snuff it before retiring? The entire pot, tax free, goes to my God Sprog. All joking apart, that’s quite possibly a six figure sum in the next 7 years, even if I don’t get further promotions.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Comparing international life expectancy is meaningless anyway. Every nation has a slightly different way to calculate both infant mortality and life expectancy, so in the end it is a major apples to oranges comparison. If everyone would simply use the UN standards it would help out quite a bit. The US actually has quite broad definitions compared to other countries which makes our life expectancy look a little lower comparatively.

Regardless, the study shows that using our own standards.... we have gotten worse. There is no need to compare against other countries at all to see this is bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
So, at 37, I'll start pulling a pension, with somewhere around $85k in a 401k.

I'll then start a second career, hopefully one that provides a pension as well, but if not, I'll get a Roth going with that one.

At any rate, I'm fairly comfortable with my future prospects of true retirement.

This study seems to indicate that you have a better chance of dying before you retire than similar folks in previous decades.

 Ouze wrote:
The US? Turning its back on people who served honorably?

Surely you jest, sir.

You forgot your [/sarcasm] tag so we'd know you were joking....

Snipped: From OPs Article:

but also by a diverse list of diseases affecting organs throughout the body, said lead researcher Dr. Steven Woolf. He's director emeritus of the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine's Center on Society and Health.

I think diet is a huge factor. The one size fits all Food Pyramid that I was taught to memorize growing up in the 80s turned out to be all kinds of garbage, for instance.

I'm sure its a suite of issues all culminating in the decline in life expectancy, but I didn't see diet mentioned in previous comments.

When your diet is not restricted by what is available but by what you can afford, 'good' dietary practices tend to fall by the wayside. And this goes double if you don't have the time to cook fresh for yourself because you're working multiple jobs.

 Vulcan wrote:
When your diet is not restricted by what is available but by what you can afford, 'good' dietary practices tend to fall by the wayside. And this goes double if you don't have the time to cook fresh for yourself because you're working multiple jobs.

Eating prepared meals, either from the supermarket or fast food chains is not in any way more affordable.
Nor is it any quicker. When it takes 24 minutes (just waiting) for me to get our family an order from McD’s and 35 bucks, it costs twice as much as a healthy home made meal. And a home cooked meal only takes 10 minutes more.

Food conglomerates and fast food chains have you fooled into thinking it’s cheaper and easier to eat out or eat prepared meals.
When it takes me 30 minutes to make a meal, and it costs less than 20 dollars with leftovers to take for lunch the next day, that’s not huge amount of time nor money. I feed my family of four for $500 on average per month.
That’s the same cost as eating out for half the time.

Even working multiple jobs and two kids I can still make healthy meals.
Stop buying into misinformation about eating healthy - it’s not expensive or time-consuming.
It only takes a bit of budgeting and even less time.
Massive food companies want everyone to believe that eating healthy is expensive and difficult.
They make more money that way.

 Ghool wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
When your diet is not restricted by what is available but by what you can afford, 'good' dietary practices tend to fall by the wayside. And this goes double if you don't have the time to cook fresh for yourself because you're working multiple jobs.

Eating prepared meals, either from the supermarket or fast food chains is not in any way more affordable.
Nor is it any quicker. When it takes 24 minutes (just waiting) for me to get our family an order from McD’s and 35 bucks, it costs twice as much as a healthy home made meal. And a home cooked meal only takes 10 minutes more.

Food conglomerates and fast food chains have you fooled into thinking it’s cheaper and easier to eat out or eat prepared meals.
When it takes me 30 minutes to make a meal, and it costs less than 20 dollars with leftovers to take for lunch the next day, that’s not huge amount of time nor money. I feed my family of four for $500 on average per month.
That’s the same cost as eating out for half the time.

Even working multiple jobs and two kids I can still make healthy meals.
Stop buying into misinformation about eating healthy - it’s not expensive or time-consuming.
It only takes a bit of budgeting and even less time.
Massive food companies want everyone to believe that eating healthy is expensive and difficult.
They make more money that way.

Absolutely true, however there are several other factors as well. Having the skill and knowledge to prepare said food, having the appliances to do that, and perhaps most importantly having the energy to do that. It also does not undermine the main point; even when preparing one's own meals unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food because unhealthy ingredients are cheaper than healthy ones. And that is before getting into matters of literal taste.

 Vulcan wrote:
When your diet is not restricted by what is available but by what you can afford, 'good' dietary practices tend to fall by the wayside. And this goes double if you don't have the time to cook fresh for yourself because you're working multiple jobs.

Don't have time to cook fresh? You don't need hot food and brown bagging a lunch takes like 5 minutes in the morning. For the cost of 1 fast food meal I have lunches for a week.

Heck, I knew a guy who would just go to the grocery store, grab a bun and some cold cuts and make a deli sandwich for 1/4 the price, but his lunch box included 5 different sauces to enable it. But it was just as fast as fast food.

 Galef wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So, any hypothesis on why the death rate among Young Adults is growing faster in the 2000's than anytime since WWII?

Student loans? No, seriously it's a big problem. The debt most millennials have from going to college is ridiculous. Many are bankrupt.
-

And student loan debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy so there's no escaping it because- (flips back 15 years to the arguments used to justify this) "-I paid for college by working hard at a summer job to cover tuition. Kids shouldn't get a free ride because they're unwilling to do a little hard work.".And so because society and the educational system push heavily on the 'you have to go to college if you want to succeed in life' and student loans are very easy to get, the massive financial decision people are making at that ripe, wise old age of 17-19 becomes a millstone that many have a lot of trouble getting out from under.

After graduation, starting ones adult life with potentially tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of inescapable debt seriously impacts the later shape of life, especially with the current prospects for new entrants to the job market. Service jobs are plentiful, but low pay, low stability, and low to no benefits. Things that used to be blue collar staples and the road to long term advancement like manufacturing, are shrinking, and the line work is outsourced to employment agencies. Meaning that actually working for the company is eventually possible, but until then, you're an easily replaceable asset.

Although most of it still falls under 'blah blah blah, millenials would be fine if they weren't eating all that avocado toast,' whinging, these's already noticeable consequences from this on things like the housing market. Less stability and large debt early in life have a huge impact on willingness and capability to buy a house, pushing it back to later in life if at all.

Things are going to get really interesting in another 30 years when retirement time starts to hit full swing, and the results of all the pressures that made many people under, or unable to save for retirement are felt in full force (another side effect of inescapable student loan debt - the money that would do the most good by being set aside early and allowed to grow is being eaten up in loan payments).

Active Duty Military, 20 years and retired. No student loans, all my college has been taken care of- I actually get more money by going to college full time.

I still work, because I want to and I like the extra pay. But I could survive on my retirement pay.

It's not impossible.

Good dietary practices aren't impossible to get on a budget. Chicken breast and green and red veggies aren't pricey. I avoid fast food unless I'm in dire straits and didn't prepare, or I just want a little treat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Absolutely true, however there are several other factors as well. Having the skill and knowledge to prepare said food, having the appliances to do that, and perhaps most importantly having the energy to do that. It also does not undermine the main point; even when preparing one's own meals unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food because unhealthy ingredients are cheaper than healthy ones. And that is before getting into matters of literal taste.

If I can take apart a transmission and change out my cylinders in a truck with 0 Mechanic experience, a few borrowed tools, and Youtube... there's no excuse to not know how to make your own meal.

If your "Healthy Ingredients" are too expensive, then you probably need to stop going to Trader Joe's or Whole Foods and go down to the actual normal peoples' grocery store or a Farmer's Market if you wanna be picky.

Many of these 'challenges' in life aren't impossible, they just take a little extra work.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Active Duty Military, 20 years and retired. No student loans, all my college has been taken care of- I actually get more money by going to college full time.

I still work, because I want to and I like the extra pay. But I could survive on my retirement pay.

I was waiting for FYIGM to show up, and boy did it.

the quiet tragedy is that the topic isn't even about retirement planning, but dying prior to retirement age.

If everyone was exactly me, there would be no problem.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Active Duty Military, 20 years and retired. No student loans, all my college has been taken care of- I actually get more money by going to college full time.

I still work, because I want to and I like the extra pay. But I could survive on my retirement pay.

It's not impossible.

Good dietary practices aren't impossible to get on a budget. Chicken breast and green and red veggies aren't pricey. I avoid fast food unless I'm in dire straits and didn't prepare, or I just want a little treat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Absolutely true, however there are several other factors as well. Having the skill and knowledge to prepare said food, having the appliances to do that, and perhaps most importantly having the energy to do that. It also does not undermine the main point; even when preparing one's own meals unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food because unhealthy ingredients are cheaper than healthy ones. And that is before getting into matters of literal taste.

If I can take apart a transmission and change out my cylinders in a truck with 0 Mechanic experience, a few borrowed tools, and Youtube... there's no excuse to not know how to make your own meal.

If your "Healthy Ingredients" are too expensive, then you probably need to stop going to Trader Joe's or Whole Foods and go down to the actual normal peoples' grocery store or a Farmer's Market if you wanna be picky.

Many of these 'challenges' in life aren't impossible, they just take a little extra work.

I suggest examine the world from outside your own perspective. You may find it enlightening.

 Polonius wrote:
I was waiting for FYIGM to show up, and boy did it.

the quiet tragedy is that the topic isn't even about retirement planning, but dying prior to retirement age.

Yes, FYIGM. Clearly it wasn't handed over to me. Oh, and for all of those people who said something along the lines of "yOu WeReN't SmArT eNoUgH fOr CoLlEgE!"- Yes, FYIGM and I enjoy knowing they'll be in debt until they hit 50 (at best). Because FYIGM, I saw an opportunity and I seized it. That's not a lottery, that's smart.

And the latter part about dying prior to the age was also a concern, so I'm not completely ignorant. There's a lot of factors that have sent my buddies to the afterlife, too- not just "over there", but back home-years after retiring or finishing their commitment.

Maybe, and just hear me out-

A lot of people out there make bad choices financially and regarding their health. A few trips to any FLGS and you can spot a few guys who won't make it past 55, so I can hardly be mad at them for squandering their money on Warhammer models until their accounts are overdrafted.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
If everyone was exactly me, there would be no problem.

I've been saying this for years. I even said, "And women don't have to look like me", which works out great for everyone- and it still wasn't well-received. Weirdos.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I suggest examine the world from outside your own perspective. You may find it enlightening.

I'm not sure I can make my brain work on the perspective that produces "I don't know how to food unless other people make it for me". At that point, one should live with their parents or in a care facility. It's 2019, cooking your own food isn't hard. Your ancestors figured it out with some sticks and a slab of meat.

See that's your perception of another perspective, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of viewpoints beyond your own. Which is why I'm not taking you seriously. There is little purpose in trying to explain what the other side of a building looks like when the response is "but it doesn't look like that from where I'm standing so it's wrong."

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
See that's your perception of another perspective, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of viewpoints beyond your own. Which is why I'm not taking you seriously.

I'm still waiting for a reason why anyone who thinks "I don't know how to cook something in 2019 where I can literally youtube a step-by-step process on how to disassemble an aircraft engine or sew an entire Batman costume" should think that I'd be too terribly bothered about what they take seriously. Obviously, if you can't take your own health seriously enough, and your excuses are "I don't have time", "I don't have a stove/oven", or "I don't know how to learn"- well, taking me seriously should be your last concern. There's a lot more out there to prioritize.

At this point, if you don't have any of those things- there's not really much reason for you to be on a page discussing a game that involves $40.00 plastic space men.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
See that's your perception of another perspective, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of viewpoints beyond your own. Which is why I'm not taking you seriously.

I'm still waiting for a reason why anyone who thinks "I don't know how to cook something in 2019 where I can literally youtube a step-by-step process on how to disassemble an aircraft engine or sew an entire Batman costume" should think that I'd be too terribly bothered about what they take seriously. Obviously, if you can't take your own health seriously enough, and your excuses are "I don't have time", "I don't have a stove/oven", or "I don't know how to learn"- well, taking me seriously should be your last concern. There's a lot more out there to prioritize.

At this point, if you don't have any of those things- there's not really much reason for you to be on a page discussing a game that involves $40.00 plastic space men.

You are completely detached from the point I am making. Reading what you think I'm saying is like reading a fictional novel.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Absolutely true, however there are several other factors as well. Having the skill and knowledge to prepare said food, having the appliances to do that, and perhaps most importantly having the energy to do that. It also does not undermine the main point; even when preparing one's own meals unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food because unhealthy ingredients are cheaper than healthy ones. And that is before getting into matters of literal taste.

Well, I agree, nutrition and diet are "not simple." Part of that is educational. There are really, in all likelihood, far too many people who don't understand, say, what a carbohydrate vs. protein vs. a fat, for example. I've had actual educated people, who are quite intelligent, tell me that vegetables aren't carbs. Only to realize their mistake once saying it. But that is really how they saw it, before actually thinking critically about it. "Is butter a carb?" seems like a joke question, but people, in real life, have actually asked my wife that.

Not only that, but indeed, we don't teach people to cook nearly enough. It's seen as some sort of "hobby" not a pretty vital skill. The further problem of how to cook even vaguely healthy though is a whole additional problem. What seems (to me) to happen, is that people get conditioned to certain aspect of fast food, or snack food, that are in-themselves pleasing, but are not at all healthy. Consider, if you habituate to, say, McDonalds food, there is so much salt in there, that there is no path "back" for the most part, to a "healthier" salt level. The same goes for sweetened things. Since fructose is vastly more sweet tasting than even sucrose, tasting something not full of fructose "tastes bad." So, when you cook at home, you aren't likely to put in absurd amounts of salt, or add HFCS, or fill things with soy lechetin. But those things are so overwhelmingly present in "junk" foods that we think "this is how food should taste" and then you can't accept any substitute!

Here is an anecdote to illustrate. I was grocery shopping and in a moment of weakness (I know, I know) saw some brownies for sale, a little pack, only 99 cents, so I looked at the ingredients. Interestingly, no dairy (I can't have it) and no fructose (I also need to avoid that, due to digestive issues). I figured I'd give it a shot. So, when the register person rang it up, she asked, "have you had these before?" No, I replied. "Oh, I tried them and they were gross," she said. Oh, well, it's only a dollar, I give them a shot, I said. Well, I did. And they were quite good, but not overly sweet, obviously, because they had no fructose in it. Here's my analysis, she likely didn't like them precisely because they were not overly sweet, precisely because almost everything else you'd get on that shelf is sweetened to a much higher degree and once habituated to that level, nothing else could suffice.

Not only is it "easier" to hit the drive through on the way home, it literally tastes better in most cases because the food has been engineered to be addictive and overly appealing. That is literally how it sells. Plus the savings on time and effort. So, you are saying that I get something that tastes better and takes less time, effort and skill? The question isn't why would someone choose junk food, but rather, why would anyone not choose it? Now, of course, it's not actually that simple, because some people really do worth multiple jobs, really do not have the time or the ability to put forth the effort and there you can see how this all downwardly spirals, endlessly. There is a whole "next level" to this as well, but I think I've ranted enough here now.

Suffice to say, once you are conditioned to a high calorie, high salt, high sugar diet, it perpetuates it's own perpetuance. And you will pay the cost in health over the long term, no doubt.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You are completely detached from the point I am making. Reading what you think I'm saying is like reading a fictional novel.

Well, help me out here- I'm going to quote one of my favorite bits of fiction and you tell me where there is a loss in translation:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Absolutely true, however there are several other factors as well. Having the skill and knowledge to prepare said food, having the appliances to do that, and perhaps most importantly having the energy to do that. It also does not undermine the main point; even when preparing one's own meals unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food because unhealthy ingredients are cheaper than healthy ones. And that is before getting into matters of literal taste.

That's ripped from your post. No edits. Exactly what you said.

And I refuted your points. Your counter was, in a nutshell, "You don't see it right and you're mean".

Saying "change your perspective" is not an argument. By all means, please, show me what perspective I have failed to consider in my assessment of the capabilities of the capable human adult in Western society.

Because I haven't even taken the point about "unhealthy food being cheaper" and torn it apart yet. That's a whole different thing I want to crush- because people don't actually know what "healthy food" really is, they think it requires a special label or something... when in fact, really, it's a lot to do with portion control, what you mix, when you eat, etc. Fast food isn't even as terrible as people think- it's just a matter of specifically what they order, and the fact that sodas are terrible for you.

 H wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Absolutely true, however there are several other factors as well. Having the skill and knowledge to prepare said food, having the appliances to do that, and perhaps most importantly having the energy to do that. It also does not undermine the main point; even when preparing one's own meals unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food because unhealthy ingredients are cheaper than healthy ones. And that is before getting into matters of literal taste.

Well, I agree, nutrition and diet are "not simple." Part of that is educational. There are really, in all likelihood, far too many people who don't understand, say, what a carbohydrate vs. protein vs. a fat, for example. I've had actual educated people, who are quite intelligent, tell me that vegetables aren't carbs. Only to realize their mistake once saying it. But that is really how they saw it, before actually thinking critically about it. "Is butter a carb?" seems like a joke question, but people, in real life, have actually asked my wife that.

Not only that, but indeed, we don't teach people to cook nearly enough. It's seen as some sort of "hobby" not a pretty vital skill. The further problem of how to cook even vaguely healthy though is a whole additional problem. What seems (to me) to happen, is that people get conditioned to certain aspect of fast food, or snack food, that are in-themselves pleasing, but are not at all healthy. Consider, if you habituate to, say, McDonalds food, there is so much salt in there, that there is no path "back" for the most part, to a "healthier" salt level. The same goes for sweetened things. Since fructose is vastly more sweet tasting than even sucrose, tasting something not full of fructose "tastes bad." So, when you cook at home, you aren't likely to put in absurd amounts of salt, or add HFCS, or fill things with soy lechetin. But those things are so overwhelmingly present in "junk" foods that we think "this is how food should taste" and then you can't accept any substitute!

Here is an anecdote to illustrate. I was grocery shopping and in a moment of weakness (I know, I know) saw some brownies for sale, a little pack, only 99 cents, so I looked at the ingredients. Interestingly, no dairy (I can't have it) and no fructose (I also need to avoid that, due to digestive issues). I figured I'd give it a shot. So, when the register person rang it up, she asked, "have you had these before?" No, I replied. "Oh, I tried them and they were gross," she said. Oh, well, it's only a dollar, I give them a shot, I said. Well, I did. And they were quite good, but not overly sweet, obviously, because they had no fructose in it. Here's my analysis, she likely didn't like them precisely because they were not overly sweet, precisely because almost everything else you'd get on that shelf is sweetened to a much higher degree and once habituated to that level, nothing else could suffice.

Not only is it "easier" to hit the drive through on the way home, it literally tastes better in most cases because the food has been engineered to be addictive and overly appealing. That is literally how it sells. Plus the savings on time and effort. So, you are saying that I get something that tastes better and takes less time, effort and skill? The question isn't why would someone choose junk food, but rather, why would anyone not choose it? Now, of course, it's not actually that simple, because some people really do worth multiple jobs, really do not have the time or the ability to put forth the effort and there you can see how this all downwardly spirals, endlessly. There is a whole "next level" to this as well, but I think I've ranted enough here now.

Suffice to say, once you are conditioned to a high calorie, high salt, high sugar diet, it perpetuates it's own perpetuance. And you will pay the cost in health over the long term, no doubt.

Agreed on all counts. It goes to show that in relation to the point made in the OP even just the food aspect has a large amount of depth which is its own topic entirely. I will also add that those $1 of brownies probably had way, way more calories than $1 of any healthy fruit or vegetable product, going back to my point that even when cooking for oneself the unhealthy ingredients are cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
And I refuted your points.

No, you never even addressed them. What you think I said and what I actually said are completely different. My best advice is to take what you think of my position right now, and re-read what I've said assuming that is wrong.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Agreed on all counts. It goes to show that in relation to the point made in the OP even just the food aspect has a large amount of depth which is its own topic entirely. I will also add that those $1 of brownies probably had way, way more calories than $1 of any healthy fruit or vegetable product, going back to my point that even when cooking for oneself the unhealthy ingredients are cheaper.

What's the price difference between an unhealthy chicken breast and a healthy chicken breast, and what ingredients can be added to either to make it unhealthy?

Because I can sit here and tell you a grilled chicken breast vs. a deep fried (unhealthy) chicken breast is going to have a significantly steeper price tag if you're making the unhealthy version.

And please don't tell me you think Organic = Healthy, GMO = Bad. Because you seem smarter than that, and I attribute that kind of thinking to the people who put crystals on their foreheads to stop a headache.

For one thing, your life plan requires military service. Not everyone has the temperament, ideology, or physical health to make it in the military. However, I do agree that life would be easier for everyone if the government paid for healthcare and retirement.

While it would be nice if everyone knew how to cook and make minor repairs, these things have to be taught to be learned and schools don’t teach these skills any more. Blaming the students for not knowing something they never had a chance to learn might feel good but isn’t going to accomplish much.

Well, corn siroop is still a thing on your side of the pond right?

Just like glutamat here,mostly due to the industry that lobbies to keep it legal.

Meanwhile here we have high parkinsons and alzheimers traced partially to glutamat consumption.

It's definitely harder to eat well in America! In the 2 months I was there if I wanted healthy food I had to drive to Walmart and buy fruit, but there were fast food joints on every corner.. KFC, mcd, bk, Wendy's, church's, jitb, taco Bell, Dennys, the list is endless. I did enjoy the fajitas at chilli's though. And bee dubs was good too.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Agreed on all counts. It goes to show that in relation to the point made in the OP even just the food aspect has a large amount of depth which is its own topic entirely. I will also add that those $1 of brownies probably had way, way more calories than $1 of any healthy fruit or vegetable product, going back to my point that even when cooking for oneself the unhealthy ingredients are cheaper.

What's the price difference between an unhealthy chicken breast and a healthy chicken breast, and what ingredients can be added to either to make it unhealthy?

Because I can sit here and tell you a grilled chicken breast vs. a deep fried (unhealthy) chicken breast is going to have a significantly steeper price tag if you're making the unhealthy version.

And please don't tell me you think Organic = Healthy, GMO = Bad. Because you seem smarter than that, and I attribute that kind of thinking to the people who put crystals on their foreheads to stop a headache.

Have you ever lived in an area where the only chicken you could buy required an extra halfhour of travel and was marked way the hell up? If you’ve never been in a “food desert” it can be really hard to believe, but they do exist. And they suck. I’d say they suck ass, but even that can be pretty unavailable.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Agreed on all counts. It goes to show that in relation to the point made in the OP even just the food aspect has a large amount of depth which is its own topic entirely. I will also add that those $1 of brownies probably had way, way more calories than $1 of any healthy fruit or vegetable product, going back to my point that even when cooking for oneself the unhealthy ingredients are cheaper.

What's the price difference between an unhealthy chicken breast and a healthy chicken breast, and what ingredients can be added to either to make it unhealthy?

Because I can sit here and tell you a grilled chicken breast vs. a deep fried (unhealthy) chicken breast is going to have a significantly steeper price tag if you're making the unhealthy version.

Chicken breast and ground beef have similar price per pound, but ground beef is double the calories. And as easy it is to make a grilled chicken breast, making a burger is even easier. Add to the mix that most people overwhelmingly prefer the latter in taste to the former.

And please don't tell me you think Organic = Healthy, GMO = Bad. Because you seem smarter than that, and I attribute that kind of thinking to the people who put crystals on their foreheads to stop a headache.

I have learned to stop myself from speaking on this topic, because I will inevitably rant. Suffice to say I agree more than I can put into words.

Actually reminds me, was there ever a off topic thread for fast recipies?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
While it would be nice if everyone knew how to cook and make minor repairs, these things have to be taught to be learned and schools don’t teach these skills any more. Blaming the students for not knowing something they never had a chance to learn might feel good but isn’t going to accomplish much.

We could, at the very least, teach them how to teach themselves. But that's something we save for college.

NinthMusketeer wrote:Agreed on all counts. It goes to show that in relation to the point made in the OP even just the food aspect has a large amount of depth which is its own topic entirely. I will also add that those $1 of brownies probably had way, way more calories than $1 of any healthy fruit or vegetable product, going back to my point that even when cooking for oneself the unhealthy ingredients are cheaper.

Yes, absolutely. Calorie density is a fact, really. So, indeed, while you can make the case otherwise, because food is expensive in any case, less calorie dense foods (like vegetables, for example) are more expensive per calorie. And that's in insidious sort of thing about being habituated to say, a 4,000 calorie a day diet. There is simply, to make a silly example, no way anyone is going to eat that much broccoli. But it's facile to eat that much in one Burger King, or KFC meal alone.

Not Online!!! wrote:Well, corn siroop is still a thing on your side of the pond right?

Just like glutamat here,mostly due to the industry that lobbies to keep it legal.

Meanwhile here we have high parkinsons and alzheimers traced partially to glutamat consumption.

Oh, yeah, very much so. And High Fructose Corn Syrup no less, as well. It's in anything and everything because it (corn) is very, very subsidized as well. So, like wheat here in the US, they add it to anything and everything, just as filler. And, like soy lecithin, once habituated to it, things without it don't taste "as good" to many people. It's addictive, it's habit-forming and it's not healthy in any real way.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
However, I do agree that life would be easier for everyone if the government paid for healthcare and retirement.

You know it's a slap in our face when you insinuate that this is just some little freebie we get for existing and wearing a costume, like it's just handed to us. I just want you to know that.

I also want you to know it's something that's only said on the safety of the internet. Go down to the VFW and say this, I dare you.

Yes, it would be an easier life if everyone were physically, morally, legally, and psychologically capable of doing this for 20 years and earning those benefits. I dare say we'd live in a much better world if all people were capable of earning it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
While it would be nice if everyone knew how to cook and make minor repairs, these things have to be taught to be learned and schools don’t teach these skills any more. Blaming the students for not knowing something they never had a chance to learn might feel good but isn’t going to accomplish much.

I did not know how to cook when I got out on my own. I did not have these classes in school.

I learned. I went and read, or asked people to show me, and once they decided to put Youtube on a device that fits in my pocket I was unstoppable.

It's called "initiative". It's more than an old stat from 7th. At this points, the excuses sound like what I expect to hear from a lazy person.

"Not having the chance to learn"- if they had no capability to read, no means to speak to another human being, and have absolutely no time to remedy any of the above- I wish to speak to this exceptional individual and inquire about the monsters that kept them locked in a basement for an entire lifetime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Have you ever lived in an area where the only chicken you could buy required an extra halfhour of travel and was marked way the hell up? If you’ve never been in a “food desert” it can be really hard to believe, but they do exist. And they suck. I’d say they suck ass, but even that can be pretty unavailable.

Then one should seek an alternative. While I'm fairly certain you could land on the moon and find a place with chicken breasts for sale (next to the Dollar General that you know is going to manifest there), I'm quite certain that in no way can all of your protein foods be inaccessible. At that point, other sources can be found.

I wonder what portion of the US's health problems could be traced just to corn subsidies. Obviously that is one factor among countless, but I still believe that there would be a noticeable improvement in health if corn subsidies were eliminated.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I wonder what portion of the US's health problems could be traced just to corn subsidies. Obviously that is one factor among countless, but I still believe that there would be a noticeable improvement in health if corn subsidies were eliminated.

Corn acts mostly as a filler. We'd be buying more 'pure' food, but the lack of corn subsidies wouldn't improve our health.

And that 'pure' food would be much more expensive, because you won't see people willing to eat smaller portions. They'll be rioting.

I'm not worried. I'm already retired (retired early), and while I'm not rich by any means, I live comfortably enough.


Where there is a will, there is a way. Most of those I know who are still working at retirement age either enjoy working too much to quit, loves money too much, or got so deep into debt over the years they can't afford to retire.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I wonder what portion of the US's health problems could be traced just to corn subsidies. Obviously that is one factor among countless, but I still believe that there would be a noticeable improvement in health if corn subsidies were eliminated.

Well, i do remember from my courses that especially diabetes and related issues did drop heavily.
However switzerland is still high in that regards due to sugar refining and subsidies of sugar carrots (no idea,Zuckerrübe is what i mean).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I wonder what portion of the US's health problems could be traced just to corn subsidies. Obviously that is one factor among countless, but I still believe that there would be a noticeable improvement in health if corn subsidies were eliminated.

Corn acts mostly as a filler. We'd be buying more 'pure' food, but the lack of corn subsidies wouldn't improve our health.

And that 'pure' food would be much more expensive, because you won't see people willing to eat smaller portions. They'll be rioting.

Indeed the subsidies themselves aren't the issue .

The issue comes then when you allow the companies to use what ever they want. Ofc there will be those that abuse that or actively Lobby for letting the abuse go unhindered.

(Cough glutamat cough.)

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I wonder what portion of the US's health problems could be traced just to corn subsidies. Obviously that is one factor among countless, but I still believe that there would be a noticeable improvement in health if corn subsidies were eliminated.

Unlikely. Most of the issues we have in the United States is related to poor eating habits, poor dietary choices, and lack of exercise/low activity lifestyles.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I wonder what portion of the US's health problems could be traced just to corn subsidies. Obviously that is one factor among countless, but I still believe that there would be a noticeable improvement in health if corn subsidies were eliminated.

Well, i do remember from my courses that especially diabetes and related issues did drop heavily.
However switzerland is still high in that regards due to sugar refining and subsidies of sugar carrots (no idea,Zuckerrübe is what i mean).

Yeah, sugar, in whatever form, is a huge problem. Not just as corn syrup, or high fructose corn syrup, but even just cane or beet sugar. Plus, then it gets labeled as invert sugar, or dextrose, and on, and on. Not to mention, how many people really read the nutritional labels of things and consider how many grams of sugar is "too much" for a given day? Not many, honestly.

Sugar is almost certainly bad for you in anything higher than very small quantities. But research was likely, and likely still is, being suppressed about this because the lobbies are strong since there is a lot of money in it.

 H wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I wonder what portion of the US's health problems could be traced just to corn subsidies. Obviously that is one factor among countless, but I still believe that there would be a noticeable improvement in health if corn subsidies were eliminated.

Well, i do remember from my courses that especially diabetes and related issues did drop heavily.
However switzerland is still high in that regards due to sugar refining and subsidies of sugar carrots (no idea,Zuckerrübe is what i mean).

Yeah, sugar, in whatever form, is a huge problem. Not just as corn syrup, or high fructose corn syrup, but even just cane or beet sugar. Plus, then it gets labeled as invert sugar, or dextrose, and on, and on. Not to mention, how many people really read the nutritional labels of things and consider how many grams of sugar is "too much" for a given day? Not many, honestly.

Sugar is almost certainly bad for you in anything higher than very small quantities. But research was likely, and likely still is, being suppressed about this because the lobbies are strong since there is a lot of money in it.

Actually research suggests that sugar is in the Same realm as certain drugs, especially white refined one.

However,worse than that are artificial sugar replacements.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Actually research suggests that sugar is in the Same realm as certain drugs, especially white refined one.

However,worse than that are artificial sugar replacements.

So basically, it's simply safer to do cocaine instead of candy!

That's my excuse, and you can't stop me.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm rolling an expired grocery coupon for sugar, and gonna do a line off the table.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Actually research suggests that sugar is in the Same realm as certain drugs, especially white refined one.

However,worse than that are artificial sugar replacements.

So basically, it's simply safer to do cocaine instead of candy!

That's my excuse, and you can't stop me.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm rolling an expired grocery coupon for sugar, and gonna do a line off the table.

Actually the exemple given if my memory serves me right,is more akin to heroin. As in the symptome is the avoidance of coming down.


Found it, should probably reread it.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

Only now realised that you wanted to be sassy.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually research suggests that sugar is in the Same realm as certain drugs, especially white refined one.

However,worse than that are artificial sugar replacements.

Yeah, I believe it. Since I have fructose malabsorption, I am really trying to dial back all sugar consumption, but yeah, it's real hard to relapse. It's pretty absurd, but it's true, it's real addictive for sure.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually the exemple given if my memory serves me right,is more akin to heroin. As in the symptome is the avoidance of coming down.


Found it, should probably reread it.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

Only now realised that you wanted to be sassy.

Well, at least Cocaine is safer than Monster Energy drinks.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually the exemple given if my memory serves me right,is more akin to heroin. As in the symptome is the avoidance of coming down.


Found it, should probably reread it.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

Only now realised that you wanted to be sassy.

Well, at least Cocaine is safer than Monster Energy drinks.

Well considering synthetic sugar replacements and Aluminium can on top of it.
Probably not but still damaging enough that raising public attention would be beneficial for public healthcare and the costs for society generated through that.

Food Deserts....

https://www.moveforhunger.org/harsh-reality-food-deserts-america/

One of the key components of someone’s risk of poverty is their location. In regards to many aspects of life, location is everything, especially when it comes to the accessibility to food resources. In the United States, many citizens face the risk of going hungry because of their location within a food desert. A food desert is essentially an area in which someone does not have access to a food source, such as a supermarket, nearby.

The definition of food deserts differs, though, based upon whether one lives in an urban or a rural setting. In fact, according to a Newsweek article published in 2014, “[I]n urban areas, the U.S Department of Agriculture considers a food desert an area with no ready access to a store with fresh and nutritious food options within one mile. In rural America, a food desert is defined as 10 miles or more from the nearest market.” Unfortunately, food deserts are not few and far between, “it’s estimated there are more than 23 million people, more than half of them low-income, living in food deserts.”

I have a feeling there is a pretty compelling link between diet, access to health care, access to mental health resources, and economic choices related to health care that all go together to help explain what is happening with Mortality in the US.

Would be interesting to see a map with wealth comparison and one with crimerates aswell

 Ouze wrote:
The US? Turning its back on people who served honorably?

Surely you jest, sir.

The level of anger this brought up in me as a result of the last few bouts of military strong men may very well explain the despair and the suicide rates....

And frankly, yeah, chicken breast and veggies is relatively expensive on the budgets of some folks I know, even if that along with rice it's a large part of my own diet to save money.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

I still work, because I want to and I like the extra pay. But I could survive on my retirement pay.

Because you got a sweet deal by joining the military at a young age, and now get to reap the benefits. You were lucky enough to make the decision that turned out to be right for you.

That's part of the problem I outlined above. Some people are a good fit for service and so get to have a good retirement start before they're 40. Not everyone can join up, the military doesn't want everyone to join up. Not everyone can take your path.

Politicians and lenders sold you an even bigger bill of goods with the 'college' racket than they did with the so-called 'lending crisis'. In that, the answer to being 'fair' was to give loans to people that had no chance in hell of paying them back. Then cry and moan over the defaults, and get Uncle Sugar and the US taxpayer to make them whole again.

But they have been even more successful in getting people to believe 'everyone must go to college' racket. The end result is a mountain of debt for a largely worthless education for a job that will probably never exist. Bottom line - a college degree is as worthless as a high school diploma when everyone has one.

"Seeing an opportunity and taking it isn't lottery, it's skill" is just... Wow. What if there hadn't been an opportunity to see?

 Bookwrack wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

I still work, because I want to and I like the extra pay. But I could survive on my retirement pay.

Because you got a sweet deal by joining the military at a young age, and now get to reap the benefits. You were lucky enough to make the decision that turned out to be right for you.

That's part of the problem I outlined above. Some people are a good fit for service and so get to have a good retirement start before they're 40. Not everyone can join up, the military doesn't want everyone to join up. Not everyone can take your path.

But don't say that to a veteran's face or some vaguely implied misfortune will befall you!

 totalfailure wrote:
But they have been even more successful in getting people to believe 'everyone must go to college' racket. The end result is a mountain of debt for a largely worthless education for a job that will probably never exist. Bottom line - a college degree is as worthless as a high school diploma when everyone has one.

Trade schools are legit. They encouraged any of us that weren't going into a STEM field with our GI Bill to go to a trade school. I don't care who you are, at the end of the day- you're still going to need those skills and those jobs have pretty good job security. My younger brother did this, and he's doing great.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Seeing an opportunity and taking it isn't lottery, it's skill" is just... Wow. What if there hadn't been an opportunity to see?

I wouldn't know what living on the moon or in a third world country is like.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But don't say that to a veteran's face or some vaguely implied misfortune will befall you!

And it would be rightfully deserved, IMHO. I would enjoy laughing at this "misfortune".

NinthMusketeer wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
While it would be nice if everyone knew how to cook and make minor repairs, these things have to be taught to be learned and schools don’t teach these skills any more. Blaming the students for not knowing something they never had a chance to learn might feel good but isn’t going to accomplish much.

We could, at the very least, teach them how to teach themselves. But that's something we save for college.

When my 18 year old stepdaughter was 15, she tattooed herself. She's done it multiple times for whatever reason. You know how she figured out how to make her tattoo equipment? Same way she figured out how to make mac and cheese from scratch: Google.

I had my starter go out, and I'm about as mechanically inclined as a sack of wet onions. I looked up a YouTube video on how to change the starter on my specific van, and 20 minutes later had a running vehicle.

People are intelligent enough as a whole to learn and actively seek out through the tools on the internet ANY information or process they want. What do they wind up looking for, though? Kylie Jenner's mammary sacks or Collins Key YEEEETing a bottle behind his back.

Lead a horse to water, yadda yadda yadda...

Bookwrack wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

I still work, because I want to and I like the extra pay. But I could survive on my retirement pay.

Because you got a sweet deal by joining the military at a young age, and now get to reap the benefits. You were lucky enough to make the decision that turned out to be right for you.

That's part of the problem I outlined above. Some people are a good fit for service and so get to have a good retirement start before they're 40. Not everyone can join up, the military doesn't want everyone to join up. Not everyone can take your path.

Then forge your own path. Nothing says you have to settle for a McJob instead of pursuing a career that will foster to your needs. You're confusing luck with ambition, to your detriment. It's also an issue when people decide to dump $40,000 on a Liberal Arts degree in Basket Weaving when there's no prospects for employment and they are left redirecting to a "career" at Target.

I went through this myself on accident. I was almost through my Associates program in Forensics when the Chem Tech Dean/whatever informed us of the massive glut in the market of Forensics qualified personnel. Had the Registrar's office pointed that out in my initial counseling, maybe I could have redirected. CNC Machining maybe? As I wound up at Caterpillar as a Machinist, it would have worked out MUCH better in the long run. Instead I have loans I'm paying on a degree I didn't finish because I couldn't have even used it once I had it.

Its the same in the UK. the system channels everyone through college and university. I was almost sent that way myself and wasted 3 years at college, before joining the military. but theres little to no consideration given to advising kids at school about different life paths and careers.

personally I think its because those in higher education are not considered unemployed and thus are a useful way to skew the stats, although it becomes a false economy later on when they are in debt that cant be repayed, or have useless degrees.

I'm doing much better than most of my university educated colleagues as the military allowed me to save money that I can invest, and purchase a house.

however on the flip side of that there are plenty of idiots in the military who waste all their money, and will likely have fewer prospects when they eventually leave, having gotten used to subsidised food, travel, accomodation etc.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 totalfailure wrote:
But they have been even more successful in getting people to believe 'everyone must go to college' racket. The end result is a mountain of debt for a largely worthless education for a job that will probably never exist. Bottom line - a college degree is as worthless as a high school diploma when everyone has one.

Trade schools are legit. They encouraged any of us that weren't going into a STEM field with our GI Bill to go to a trade school. I don't care who you are, at the end of the day- you're still going to need those skills and those jobs have pretty good job security. My younger brother did this, and he's doing great.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Seeing an opportunity and taking it isn't lottery, it's skill" is just... Wow. What if there hadn't been an opportunity to see?

I wouldn't know what living on the moon or in a third world country is like.

You don't have to have that experience to realise you got a lucky break though. It's elementary reasoning skills. You ended up in a situation where you could use your skillset to identify an opportunity and take it. That's great. There's also a bunch of variables that you have no control over that made you end up there.

This isn't difficult. Anyone could figure this out using Google.


Am I doing this right?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You don't have to have that experience to realise you got a lucky break though. It's elementary reasoning skills. You ended up in a situation where you could use your skillset to identify an opportunity and take it. That's great. There's also a bunch of variables that you have no control over that made you end up there.

This isn't difficult. Anyone could figure this out using Google.

I don't think "Luck" was involved. Unless, of course, you mean I was lucky to not be born with or acquire some major disability. Because otherwise- not being a junkie, not being a criminal, not being a slob, and not being an idiot- those were conscious efforts (and trust me, some folks make being an idiot look fun). Well, they should be the norm, but hey- it's 2019 and we can't figure out how to use a stove and make food. So, I dunno.

I earned it. I worked for it. And I didn't have a skillset at 18 years old, so... not sure what Google you're using.

Oh, wait. I could cook my own food. That's apparently a LOT now, right?

You know, let's assume for a second I had a special little skillset. Do you know how you acquire a skillset? It doesn't just happen to you. You're not really born with it. It's not some magical awakening that happens while you're praying. Skillsets are learned. And to learn things you have to get up and go out and find the information. And unless you live in some cave on the moon, there are ways of acquiring that information for basic life skills.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


I wouldn't know what living on the moon or in a third world country is like.

I'm in one right now. People here mostly eat healthier than 80% of people in Europe, never mind the US. At least the ones who can afford food. (It helps that most of the super-unhealthy stuff everyone there just gobbles up is difficult to acquire and usually expensive on top here.)

I really do think that for the West food education and even the places where healthy food is available being loaded with unhealthy crap have more to do with unhealthy diets than character faults in everyone but a happy proud few who, being the ubermensch they are may now look down on the rest of us with rightful contempt of our lack of willpower to stay up and cook a full meal after 12+ hours of hard labour.

 Just Tony wrote:

NinthMusketeer wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
While it would be nice if everyone knew how to cook and make minor repairs, these things have to be taught to be learned and schools don’t teach these skills any more. Blaming the students for not knowing something they never had a chance to learn might feel good but isn’t going to accomplish much.

We could, at the very least, teach them how to teach themselves. But that's something we save for college.

When my 18 year old stepdaughter was 15, she tattooed herself. She's done it multiple times for whatever reason. You know how she figured out how to make her tattoo equipment? Same way she figured out how to make mac and cheese from scratch: Google.

I had my starter go out, and I'm about as mechanically inclined as a sack of wet onions. I looked up a YouTube video on how to change the starter on my specific van, and 20 minutes later had a running vehicle.

People are intelligent enough as a whole to learn and actively seek out through the tools on the internet ANY information or process they want.

Are these the same people that shouldn't buy a cell phone with a data plan in many "conservative" circles because such a device is a luxury?

Asking for a friend.....

Bran Dawri wrote:

I really do think that for the West food education and even the places where healthy food is available being loaded with unhealthy crap have more to do with unhealthy diets than character faults in everyone but a happy proud few who, being the ubermensch they are may now look down on the rest of us with rightful contempt of our lack of willpower to stay up and cook a full meal after 12+ hours of hard labour.

Pull a full 24 after 30 days in the mud and rain and we'll talk about a good excuse not to make a meal. "Meals" don't have to be cooked, some require little to no cooking.

Also, you can pre-prepare meals and reheat them. I do that often because I hate cooking after work and i eat a small dinner.

Also, bad dieting choices is a character fault.

 Easy E wrote:


Are these the same people that shouldn't buy a cell phone with a data plan in many "conservative" circles because such a device is a luxury?

Asking for a friend.....

Reality hurts. Unless that phone data is required for work, education, or survival- it is, indeed, a luxury item.

Why does it have to be all of one thing or the other?

Why can't it partly be personal responsibility and partly systemic issues? Sure, it's hard to know just how much of any particular it is one or the other, but that doesn't mean it must be only one or the other.

Think about about, let's say we find out, definitively that it's 99% characterological and 1% systemic. Even in that case, why should be allow that systemically 1%? Is it that we should have a "litmus test" so the 99% can "feel better" about not falling into the systemic trap? If so, why not just legalize heroin or crack, or whatever, then we, who don't take it, can point at those who do and feel much better about our the fortitude of willpower vs. those degenerates? Sounds good for the "beautiful souls" but why, exactly, is that something that should be allowed?

Think about this as well, lets say some food company finds a way to make a drug that is literally more addictive than heroin or cocaine. It's is tasteless and so on. It doesn't get you high, but it does make you want more of it. So, it would just make you want to eat more of the food that it is in.

If such a thing were to exist, should it be allowed? Why or why not? You can say, "no such thing could or would exist!" but that is besides the point. We are addressing the philosophical point, about what should or should not be "allowed" (morally/ethically) in food.

To spice it, let us further consider just say the further case where this stuff, whatever it is, makes food "taste better" and has some long-term, negative health effect as well. Should it be allowed?

In other words, how much should we be delarcing that people need to battle systemic forces with their personal responsibility vs. not allowing systemically harmful things to exist at all?

Because every system will hurt someone. Otherwise, we'd have a universal system for everything and reality would be perfect.

Why should i enact the labor of solving 1% of someone else's problem when they refuse to enact the labor to take care of themselves? At that point, I'm wasting my time/money/labor.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Because every system will hurt someone. Otherwise, we'd have a universal system for everything and reality would be perfect.

Ok, so, since no system can be perfect, why bother changing ones that are plausibly harmful?

Again, why not just legalize heroin or crack then? Sure, some people might die from it, but so what, other's with greater characterological fortitude can use and enjoy it (and not abuse it, since they have the "personal responsibility" capable of doing so), or freely ignore it's existence even. Why bother prohibiting or outlawing anything for that matter then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Why should i enact the labor of solving 1% of someone else's problem when they refuse to enact the labor to take care of themselves? At that point, I'm wasting my time/money/labor.

Oh, I see now, it's pragmatics. That's fine, it's the "greater good" since 99% of people are OK, so what if 1% die from it.

Let me ask then, it all seriousness, at what number does that calculus change? What percent of people need to be harmed for something to be pragmatically actionable in your estimate?

Also, nothing I proposed actually necessitates your labor, but I'll, for the sake of a charitable reading, just suppose somehow that it does. Even though people not dying (and being healthy) actually would cost you less, not more.

Well, the survivors would be of better stock.

You are not entitled to others' labor because you lack self control and responsibility.

I think the issue people have with cooking isn't cooking, it's having to do the dishes afterwards. Cooking makes a mountain of dishes in short order. Fast food is generally eaten with the hands, so there's no dishes (that you have to deal with) either before or after. This is compounded by the fact that people that are struggling generally don't have a ton of pots and pans and plates so they can't put off doing the dishes forever. Add to that the very real possibility of not having certain equipment that makes re-heating food convenient (like a microwave), and prepping larger amounts of food to save time becomes less possible/productive.

There are absolutely work arounds for some of these issues but it can take a larger shift in thinking than it might seem at first blush. Poverty introduces a lot of problems and extra costs that aren't apparent to someone in a better financial position. One example I like to trot out in these arguments is the one of toilet paper.

Toilet paper - we all poop, we all wipe our butts with it. It's not cheap. In fact, the smaller the package of it you buy, the more it costs. But if you're poor, you can't afford to buy in bulk. So you're buying the highest per-unit cost of TP every time. OTOH, if you're not poor, you can buy in bulk every time TP is on sale, which means you have enough to last until the next sale when you can buy in bulk again. So someone above the poverty line can pay half as much real dollars for TP than a poor person, and for far better quality TP.

This exact same problem can apply to so many things people need to buy. Having money makes saving money far easier. Now, this doesn't mean that fast food is a smart or economical choice - at all - and the claims of 12+ hours a day of hard labor just to tread water smack of hyperbole, but poverty can be a trap of limited opportunities and options.

 H wrote:
What percent of people need to be harmed for something to be pragmatically actionable in your estimate?

100%

And if being too incompetent to eat moderately decent is too hard, the action I suggest is "Fat Camps". Control their diet, forced exercise.

You want to use extremes? I will too. I give you "action".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
100%

And if being too incompetent to eat moderately decent is too hard, the action I suggest is "Fat Camps". Control their diet, forced exercise.

You want to use extremes? I will too. I give you "action".

So, again, what is the case against the legalization of heroin or crack then? Since 100% of people won't take it, why shouldn't it be allowed?

Why are we using your tax dollars to stop those sorts of drugs being made, sold or entering the country, when we should just be relying on people's personal responsibility to not take them at all?

 H wrote:

So, again, what is the case against the legalization of heroin or crack then? Since 100% of people won't take it, why shouldn't it be allowed?

I'm all for it. It'll sort itself out in about a year.

And being lazy =/= being chemically addicted to narcotics. This is getting absurd.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I'm all for it. It'll sort itself out in about a year.

And being lazy =/= being chemically addicted to narcotics. This is getting absurd.

It's not absurd, at least, not really more absurd than your initial, and continued, instance that it's 100% personal responsibility all the way down. So, sure, my example is extreme, because your initial proposition is as well.

The thing is, while your sort of utilitarian idea of systems culling people out is all well and good, likely until you find yourself, or something you care about, on the "wrong side" of the culling. But honestly, I am not interested in changing your mind. I see that you have a strictly utilitarian approach, I disagree that it is a foundation for an actual productive society to have for a variety of reasons and I'll move on with my life.

Don't live outside your means. Take care of your body. The best answer isn't always the happiest.

Reality hurts.

If you refuse to help yourself at all, society owes you nothing. Be an adult.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll raise you one.

Let's play percentages. We as a society remedy the small percent that maybe possibly isn't "personal choice". But if that fails, the person gets nothing and is 100% responsible for themselves.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
However, I do agree that life would be easier for everyone if the government paid for healthcare and retirement.

You know it's a slap in our face when you insinuate that this is just some little freebie we get for existing and wearing a costume, like it's just handed to us. I just want you to know that.

I implied no such thing. I respect all of my friends and family who served in the military and honor them for their service. I am not downgrading you or your accomplishments by pointing out what you yourself said, retirement and good health are possible with the government looking out for you. You deserve to be recognized and rewarded for your service, but giving everyone in this country a better life does not make yours worse. Saying "we should take care of everyone" is not the same as saying you should go screw off. I look at the countries where our grandparents used to hand out chocolate bars and see they can take care of all their citizens without putting them in crippling debt, and suggest America can damn well do the same and better.

I also want you to know it's something that's only said on the safety of the internet. Go down to the VFW and say this, I dare you.

1. You seem really ready to believe the worst interpretation of what people say to you. That's got to make things difficult.
2. You're usually the confident poster who can dish it out as well as take it, and instead of some sarcastic burn you resort to impersonal threats of violence? It hurts me to see you that delicate.

Yes, it would be an easier life if everyone were physically, morally, legally, and psychologically capable of doing this for 20 years and earning those benefits. I dare say we'd live in a much better world if all people were capable of earning it.

It would be much, much easier if everyone were physically healthy, yes. Some of us weren't born with that option. Psychologically, too.
Morally? It think it's pretty dangerous for any one class of people to claim sole moral authority. In fact, I consider it a moral failing. America is a melting pot, and we wouldn't have half so great a country if every person thought and believed the same way.
Legally? I know some people who served who may not have been strictly legal...

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
While it would be nice if everyone knew how to cook and make minor repairs, these things have to be taught to be learned and schools don’t teach these skills any more. Blaming the students for not knowing something they never had a chance to learn might feel good but isn’t going to accomplish much.

I did not know how to cook when I got out on my own. I did not have these classes in school.

I learned. I went and read, or asked people to show me, and once they decided to put Youtube on a device that fits in my pocket I was unstoppable.

It's called "initiative". It's more than an old stat from 7th. At this points, the excuses sound like what I expect to hear from a lazy person.

Yes, yes. I had a similar story. I had to learn how to cook in college and am still teaching my parents. Like, they can make soup now.

However, my wife's circle of friends has a lot of ...damaged people in it. Abuse can strip initiative away from the survivors. Instead of becoming fired up for self reliance and self-defense, some people shut down or retreat into more sheltered forms of living. You can't expect everyone to have the same confidence or initiative as you do, and punishing other people for needing help is not an answer that leads anywhere we want to go as a society, or so I hope. There are a lot of people out there who cannot, for one reason or another, lift themselves by their bootstraps.

Besides, you have a high opinion of yourself. You clearly feel superior to the average person. So, then, why do you demand they all meet your personal accomplishment standards to qualify as deserving empathy or respect when you acknowledge your personal achievements are beyond the possible for the average person? Is everyone beneath you in the capabilities you value unworthy? Should everyone at Adeptus Doritos-minus-one in life just die of debt poisoning?

I believe you've talked about your charitable giving before. If you feel so much contempt for the needy, why do you give?

"Not having the chance to learn"- if they had no capability to read, no means to speak to another human being, and have absolutely no time to remedy any of the above- I wish to speak to this exceptional individual and inquire about the monsters that kept them locked in a basement for an entire lifetime.

Exceptional? Have you been in a classroom in a "bad" school? Like, half the damn kids are fethed up. Four or five in every class would spend their entire time just staring down at their desks, never talking, never drawing, never doing anything. A lot of kids are taught early on by their parents or bad teachers never to ask questions or attempt to better themselves or show initiative. And some start out with promise but get fethed over by the experience, by drugs or school violence or the apathy of everyone around them. It's apparently pretty easy to break a lot of kid's will to learn.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Have you ever lived in an area where the only chicken you could buy required an extra halfhour of travel and was marked way the hell up? If you’ve never been in a “food desert” it can be really hard to believe, but they do exist. And they suck. I’d say they suck ass, but even that can be pretty unavailable.

Then one should seek an alternative. While I'm fairly certain you could land on the moon and find a place with chicken breasts for sale (next to the Dollar General that you know is going to manifest there), I'm quite certain that in no way can all of your protein foods be inaccessible. At that point, other sources can be found.

I think it was Elbows who addressed this earlier, but there really are parts of the country where healthy food is scarce or too expensive to consume regularly. And again, it all depends on your perspective and experience. My wife grew up in such an area, where most of the food her family could buy was in a can or a box. Sometimes the church would hand out fresh food..and sometimes they would buy from a truck that sold stuff that fell off other trucks (I never knew that was a real thing before I met her). When they finally got a discount foodmart type place near them, they had no idea how to shop for fresh veggies or fruits or handle raw food safely, and her parents never did cotton to eating some fruits that didn't come out of a can. The older kids grew up with an idea of what food was that left them ill adapted to cooking healthy meals. My wife learned how to cook healthy meals, but some of her older siblings didn't or wouldn't. They all have debilitating health issues these days that cost the taxpayer more than an extra class or two on how to live right ever would have.

 Easy E wrote:


Are these the same people that shouldn't buy a cell phone with a data plan in many "conservative" circles because such a device is a luxury?

Asking for a friend.....

Reality hurts. Unless that phone data is required for work, education, or survival- it is, indeed, a luxury item.

So just use Google to learn, but you should feel bad for getting a devise to access Google?

I think we can all easily see your bad faith argument..... thanks for highlighting it so clearly!

Cheers!

Just Tony wrote:I went through this myself on accident. I was almost through my Associates program in Forensics when the Chem Tech Dean/whatever informed us of the massive glut in the market of Forensics qualified personnel. Had the Registrar's office pointed that out in my initial counseling, maybe I could have redirected. CNC Machining maybe? As I wound up at Caterpillar as a Machinist, it would have worked out MUCH better in the long run. Instead I have loans I'm paying on a degree I didn't finish because I couldn't have even used it once I had it.

Isn't your anecdote the best example for you getting lucky a few times with some information and you getting some of your choices somewhat right? That doesn't sound like just hard work did it for you? You could have worked harder than any person on earth and ended up as a whatever forensics people do and be financially less stable if you hadn't accidentally gotten that information. All that tells me is that in addition to whatever hard work, initiative, and smart choices you had, luck was also a big factor in you leading a better life than what you initially thought possible.

Here you are in a situation you think is better than it could have been (because you randomly got some information that was useful) but also worse than it could have been (if only you had known earlier). That's kinda the point when people say that it's not always possible and that not all factors are within your power to change just by the magic of hard work, initiative, and smart(er) choices. And it's often much more complicated and harder for people than missing some bit of information they can actually act on.

 Easy E wrote:
So just use Google to learn, but you should feel bad for getting a devise to access Google?

I think we can all easily see your bad faith argument..... thanks for highlighting it so clearly!

I want to emphasize that while not the majority this is the level of reasoning applied to problems in the US at a not-insignificant frequency. Many voters think this way and naturally elect representatives who then put such 'logic' into practice. It creates a cultural and institutional blame of people for suffering problems that aren't their fault simply because there is a -theoretical- way to fix them. It's like taking a person with no mechanic experience, putting them in a garage with a broken car, piles of parts & tools that may or may not be relevant to fixing it, then blaming them for not knowing that they had to dig up a charging cable to plug in the laptop on the other side of the room so they could guess the password then log into google and learn how to fix the car.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

1. You seem really ready to believe the worst interpretation of what people say to you. That's got to make things difficult.
2. You're usually the confident poster who can dish it out as well as take it, and instead of some sarcastic burn you resort to impersonal threats of violence? It hurts me to see you that delicate.

Comes with regularly dealing with the worst specimens. And that's not me making a threat of violence. I'll just laugh when people do this (spoiler- people don't ever do this), but there are less restrained people than me. I'd rather not go to jail for assault, but I know people who probably aren't too concerned and putting someone in jail doesn't put your teeth back in. Food for thought.

"Delicate" is making a feeble excuse to not take care of oneself. Me? I'm just stating reality, something that a few people seem to have... avoided.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It would be much, much easier if everyone were physically healthy, yes. Some of us weren't born with that option. Psychologically, too.
Morally? It think it's pretty dangerous for any one class of people to claim sole moral authority. In fact, I consider it a moral failing. America is a melting pot, and we wouldn't have half so great a country if every person thought and believed the same way.
Legally? I know some people who served who may not have been strictly legal...

"Morally fit" doesn't mean what you think it means- it means you're not a supporter of terrorist or extremist groups, or enemies of the country.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Yes, yes. I had a similar story. I had to learn how to cook in college and am still teaching my parents. Like, they can make soup now.

However, my wife's circle of friends has a lot of ...damaged people in it. Abuse can strip initiative away from the survivors. Instead of becoming fired up for self reliance and self-defense, some people shut down or retreat into more sheltered forms of living. You can't expect everyone to have the same confidence or initiative as you do, and punishing other people for needing help is not an answer that leads anywhere we want to go as a society, or so I hope. There are a lot of people out there who cannot, for one reason or another, lift themselves by their bootstraps.

There are a lot of people out there who look at their scars and say "I'm crippled". There's a difference between offering your hand to pull someone up out of the dirt and and offering your hand and coddling them through life without letting them learn to function like an adult. You can be nice if you want. You can demand or plead that I be nice. Whether we do or not is irrelevant, because Mr. Real World is going to be an unrepentant jerk to them and we can't always be there to save someone. Sometimes, these people have to accept that being a victim doesn't mean you have to be helpless.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Besides, you have a high opinion of yourself. You clearly feel superior to the average person. So, then, why do you demand they all meet your personal accomplishment standards to qualify as deserving empathy or respect when you acknowledge your personal achievements are beyond the possible for the average person? Is everyone beneath you in the capabilities you value unworthy? Should everyone at Adeptus Doritos-minus-one in life just die of debt poisoning?

I don't feel superior to the average person. I am certain of my superiority to people who make excuses to be lazy and wait for a handout, a pity-party, or someone to take care of them instead of manifesting some sense of maturity and initiative and making some attempt to take care of themselves. My superiority over these individuals isn't a personal opinion, it is an objective fact.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I believe you've talked about your charitable giving before. If you feel so much contempt for the needy, why do you give?

I give to needy children. Children get a pass, because they haven't had their shake at it yet. I don't have anything for a grown adult that's basically exploiting the goodwill of other human beings. I loathe it, and I don't pity them, and I don't accept "poor me" excuses as a blank check for stupidity. I've seriously watched a woman take the charitable donations of christmas gifts for her children, and then turn around and sell them for... well, if it was drugs at least that'd be something, she just squandered it and the kids ended up with nothing. Needless to say, this individual didn't work (I mean, had no job and was making no attempt to remedy that. I at least give credit for trying to improve). Why should I ever, EVER feel sympathy for this person? If it were just her, and she were starving- I'd do nothing.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Exceptional? Have you been in a classroom in a "bad" school? Like, half the damn kids are fethed up. Four or five in every class would spend their entire time just staring down at their desks, never talking, never drawing, never doing anything. A lot of kids are taught early on by their parents or bad teachers never to ask questions or attempt to better themselves or show initiative. And some start out with promise but get fethed over by the experience, by drugs or school violence or the apathy of everyone around them. It's apparently pretty easy to break a lot of kid's will to learn.

You know what motivates a lot of people to learn how to make their own food? Hunger.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think it was Elbows who addressed this earlier, but there really are parts of the country where healthy food is scarce or too expensive to consume regularly. And again, it all depends on your perspective and experience. My wife grew up in such an area, where most of the food her family could buy was in a can or a box. Sometimes the church would hand out fresh food..and sometimes they would buy from a truck that sold stuff that fell off other trucks (I never knew that was a real thing before I met her). When they finally got a discount foodmart type place near them, they had no idea how to shop for fresh veggies or fruits or handle raw food safely, and her parents never did cotton to eating some fruits that didn't come out of a can. The older kids grew up with an idea of what food was that left them ill adapted to cooking healthy meals. My wife learned how to cook healthy meals, but some of her older siblings didn't or wouldn't. They all have debilitating health issues these days that cost the taxpayer more than an extra class or two on how to live right ever would have.

You keep saying "Healthy Food" like it's this special thing that you have to find. Do you know what healthy food is?

Stuff that isn't fried. Stuff that isn't junk food. You can eat pretty normal things and be healthy, you know. You won't be a sexy beach body stud, but you'll be overall healthy in terms of diet.

So unless they're locked in Mr. Wonka's factory...

 Easy E wrote:


So just use Google to learn, but you should feel bad for getting a devise to access Google?

I think we can all easily see your bad faith argument..... thanks for highlighting it so clearly!

Cheers!

The Library is free.

And I said for "work, education, and survival", so that's a cute attempt but I'm gonna have to send you back to your little scheming board to come up with a better "HAHA GOTCHA!". I can tell you worked really hard on it, it makes me sad to do this to you.

Jesus Christ, "objective superiority" based on your own assumptions about what is desirable or not. This just keeps getting better and better.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I want to emphasize that while not the majority this is the level of reasoning applied to problems in the US at a not-insignificant frequency. Many voters think this way and naturally elect representatives who then put such 'logic' into practice. It creates a cultural and institutional blame of people for suffering problems that aren't their fault simply because there is a -theoretical- way to fix them. It's like taking a person with no mechanic experience, putting them in a garage with a broken car, piles of parts & tools that may or may not be relevant to fixing it, then blaming them for not knowing that they had to dig up a charging cable to plug in the laptop on the other side of the room so they could guess the password then log into google and learn how to fix the car.

If you think making relatively decent, non-junk food in the kitchen is comparable to working on an internal combustion engine, then I might be convinced you've never actually prepared food in your life.

The kind of person you're trying to hypothetically present to me is, objectively, an idiot that belongs in a group home for special needs. Not the average adult- and if there is an adult who isn't mentally handicapped having these problems, let me be clear: The misery they endure is well-deserved. Consider it motivation to spur some improvements in life.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Jesus Christ, "objective superiority" based on your own assumptions about what is desirable or not. This just keeps getting better and better.

Reality hurts.

Do you actually look at the local idiot- the guy that refuses to help himself, makes excuses, and expects everyone to take care of him and say, "Yeah, he's just as good as I am!" Because, I don't know, I might have an issue seeing myself as having equal value to someone like that. It's a rough case of "self respect".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Jesus Christ, "objective superiority" based on your own assumptions about what is desirable or not. This just keeps getting better and better.

Reality hurts.

Reality does not mean what you think it means.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Reality does not mean what you think it means.

I'm familiar enough to make a better assessment than some, it would seem.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Reality does not mean what you think it means.

I'm familiar enough to make a better assessment than some, it would seem.

Nah. Reality hurts.





See how much of a non-argument that is?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Nah. Reality hurts.

Am I to understand that paper-thin, weak excuses for incompetence merit anything other than a scoff of dismissal? Come to me with an actual point to argue, and I'll manifest something better than a non-argument for a non-problem.


Here's the million dollar question- do these sad excuses... have you ever, you know, voiced them to someone? Like, let's just say... a single woman you were trying to get to know? A parent? An employer? Just curious, I want to know the reactions. (EDIT: Not you, obviously. You're from Sweden, they have infinite Swedish Fish).

The point is that there is no such thing as objectively superior morality, because morality hinges on inherently arbitrary decisions about what is morally desirable. I completely agree with you that it is desirable for people to be able to pull themselves together and overcome obstacles. A diehard Darwinist might argue that people who struggle with various problems deserve to die because they make the gene pool weaker (which would itself be a gross misunderstanding of natural selection, but for argument's sake). The only way to claim that something is inherently better than something else from a moral point of view is to either ignore or be ignorant of the fact that one's own moral choices are arbitrary.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The point is that there is no such thing as objectively superior morality, because morality hinges on inherently arbitrary decisions about what is morally desirable. I completely agree with you that it is desirable for people to be able to pull themselves together and overcome obstacles. A diehard Darwinist might argue that people who struggle with various problems deserve to die because they make the gene pool weaker (which would itself be a gross misunderstanding of natural selection, but for argument's sake). The only way to claim that something is inherently better than something else from a moral point of view is to either ignore or be ignorant of the fact that one's own moral choices are arbitrary.

Let's put it this way: I'll count superiority in terms of "useful to society". I'll quantify it with work hours, taxes, etc. Again, I don't count people who are at least trying to improve their lives. I don't count people who have some serious physical or mental handicap.

But, I believe that it's entirely reasonable to point out the difference between "Can't Do it" and "Won't Do it", and the lazy ones that just won't do it... are objectively less useful to society, and therefore, inferior to literally any human being that's at least trying.

In other words, I respect the hell out of the obese dude that's going to the gym, even if he's struggling- nothing but contempt for the potbellied guy that's watching Netflix and making excuses about not having the time to work out.

 Easy E wrote:


So just use Google to learn, but you should feel bad for getting a devise to access Google?

I think we can all easily see your bad faith argument..... thanks for highlighting it so clearly!

Cheers!

The Library is free.

And I said for "work, education, and survival", so that's a cute attempt but I'm gonna have to send you back to your little scheming board to come up with a better "HAHA GOTCHA!". I can tell you worked really hard on it, it makes me sad to do this to you.

Where is the public kitchen in the library? How about the free printer? Also, who funds libraries?


On a more serious note, I completely agree that a hand up out of the dirt is very different than a hand-out.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The point is that there is no such thing as objectively superior morality, because morality hinges on inherently arbitrary decisions about what is morally desirable. I completely agree with you that it is desirable for people to be able to pull themselves together and overcome obstacles. A diehard Darwinist might argue that people who struggle with various problems deserve to die because they make the gene pool weaker (which would itself be a gross misunderstanding of natural selection, but for argument's sake). The only way to claim that something is inherently better than something else from a moral point of view is to either ignore or be ignorant of the fact that one's own moral choices are arbitrary.

Let's put it this way: I'll count superiority in terms of "useful to society". I'll quantify it with work hours, taxes, etc. Again, I don't count people who are at least trying to improve their lives. I don't count people who have some serious physical or mental handicap.

But, I believe that it's entirely reasonable to point out the difference between "Can't Do it" and "Won't Do it", and the lazy ones that just won't do it... are objectively less useful to society, and therefore, inferior to literally any human being that's at least trying.

In other words, I respect the hell out of the obese dude that's going to the gym, even if he's struggling- nothing but contempt for the potbellied guy that's watching Netflix and making excuses about not having the time to work out.

That attitude is grossly hillarious and delegitimizes all valid concerns in regards to minimal standards applicable by shifiting the blame on individuals of the weaker side by completely hinging any issue on them.
It speaks cooperations and governements completely free of any and all criticism levied against them and makes for a rather naive belief in elites.

And sure, you can argue that the lazy fat feth in his cellar eating only junkfood is only his issue alone and in no shape or form are others responsible for him....
Except that is not true or only half the picture, considering the nature of the fastfood industry for exemple,which relies on a system of addiction via sugger and fat and synthezised taste carriers.

And yes responsibility is something and of course the those that atleast tried to change are "more valuable"(if you even want to quantify people that way, and excuse me but that makes my skin crawl) but trying doesn't mean succeding and why there even developped an issue like addiction to fat f.e. is on a whole other side now is it.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The point is that there is no such thing as objectively superior morality, because morality hinges on inherently arbitrary decisions about what is morally desirable. I completely agree with you that it is desirable for people to be able to pull themselves together and overcome obstacles. A diehard Darwinist might argue that people who struggle with various problems deserve to die because they make the gene pool weaker (which would itself be a gross misunderstanding of natural selection, but for argument's sake). The only way to claim that something is inherently better than something else from a moral point of view is to either ignore or be ignorant of the fact that one's own moral choices are arbitrary.

Let's put it this way: I'll count superiority in terms of "useful to society". I'll quantify it with work hours, taxes, etc. Again, I don't count people who are at least trying to improve their lives. I don't count people who have some serious physical or mental handicap.

But, I believe that it's entirely reasonable to point out the difference between "Can't Do it" and "Won't Do it", and the lazy ones that just won't do it... are objectively less useful to society, and therefore, inferior to literally any human being that's at least trying.

In other words, I respect the hell out of the obese dude that's going to the gym, even if he's struggling- nothing but contempt for the potbellied guy that's watching Netflix and making excuses about not having the time to work out.

But there's a world of difference between "objectively superior [for society]" and "objectively superior". One still presupposes the importance of being useful for society while the other does not.

 H wrote:
Why does it have to be all of one thing or the other?

Why can't it partly be personal responsibility and partly systemic issues? Sure, it's hard to know just how much of any particular it is one or the other, but that doesn't mean it must be only one or the other.

Think about about, let's say we find out, definitively that it's 99% characterological and 1% systemic. Even in that case, why should be allow that systemically 1%? Is it that we should have a "litmus test" so the 99% can "feel better" about not falling into the systemic trap? If so, why not just legalize heroin or crack, or whatever, then we, who don't take it, can point at those who do and feel much better about our the fortitude of willpower vs. those degenerates? Sounds good for the "beautiful souls" but why, exactly, is that something that should be allowed?

Think about this as well, lets say some food company finds a way to make a drug that is literally more addictive than heroin or cocaine. It's is tasteless and so on. It doesn't get you high, but it does make you want more of it. So, it would just make you want to eat more of the food that it is in.

If such a thing were to exist, should it be allowed? Why or why not? You can say, "no such thing could or would exist!" but that is besides the point. We are addressing the philosophical point, about what should or should not be "allowed" (morally/ethically) in food.

To spice it, let us further consider just say the further case where this stuff, whatever it is, makes food "taste better" and has some long-term, negative health effect as well. Should it be allowed?

In other words, how much should we be delarcing that people need to battle systemic forces with their personal responsibility vs. not allowing systemically harmful things to exist at all?

It’s called sugar. And in tests run with rats addicted to cocaine, they chose sugar over the cocaine.
It exists. And it’s ubiquitous. And it’s in everything.
And it should be treated the same as alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, and any other regulated substance.

 Ghool wrote:

 H wrote:
Why does it have to be all of one thing or the other?

Why can't it partly be personal responsibility and partly systemic issues? Sure, it's hard to know just how much of any particular it is one or the other, but that doesn't mean it must be only one or the other.

Think about about, let's say we find out, definitively that it's 99% characterological and 1% systemic. Even in that case, why should be allow that systemically 1%? Is it that we should have a "litmus test" so the 99% can "feel better" about not falling into the systemic trap? If so, why not just legalize heroin or crack, or whatever, then we, who don't take it, can point at those who do and feel much better about our the fortitude of willpower vs. those degenerates? Sounds good for the "beautiful souls" but why, exactly, is that something that should be allowed?

Think about this as well, lets say some food company finds a way to make a drug that is literally more addictive than heroin or cocaine. It's is tasteless and so on. It doesn't get you high, but it does make you want more of it. So, it would just make you want to eat more of the food that it is in.

If such a thing were to exist, should it be allowed? Why or why not? You can say, "no such thing could or would exist!" but that is besides the point. We are addressing the philosophical point, about what should or should not be "allowed" (morally/ethically) in food.

To spice it, let us further consider just say the further case where this stuff, whatever it is, makes food "taste better" and has some long-term, negative health effect as well. Should it be allowed?

In other words, how much should we be delarcing that people need to battle systemic forces with their personal responsibility vs. not allowing systemically harmful things to exist at all?

It’s called sugar. And in tests run with rats addicted to cocaine, they chose sugar over the cocaine.
It exists. And it’s ubiquitous. And it’s in everything.
And it should be treated the same as alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, and any other regulated substance.

Dosis makes the poison.
I doubt banning suguar would solve the issue,but eliminating corn siroop, or implementing limits on refined suguar would go a long way.

Not Online!!! wrote:And yes responsibility is something and of course the those that atleast tried to change are "more valuable"(if you even want to quantify people that way, and excuse me but that makes my skin crawl) but trying doesn't mean succeding and why there even developped an issue like addiction to fat f.e. is on a whole other side now is it.

Just a warning, you won't get anywhere though, if the notion that the value of human life is the precisely it's economic productivity, well, you see where the absolute Utilitarianism comes in? There is no value of human life, it's a value of economic productivity and unproductive things are literally worthless. Actually, less than worthless, they are wasteful.

That's why, once realizing I was trying to discuss with someone who unabashedly proclaims to be a strict Utilitarian, I checked myself out.

Ghool wrote:It’s called sugar. And in tests run with rats addicted to cocaine, they chose sugar over the cocaine.
It exists. And it’s ubiquitous. And it’s in everything.
And it should be treated the same as alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, and any other regulated substance.

I know, I was just drawing an allegory to illustrate the point. You are preaching to the choir with me, unfortunately.

 H wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:And yes responsibility is something and of course the those that atleast tried to change are "more valuable"(if you even want to quantify people that way, and excuse me but that makes my skin crawl) but trying doesn't mean succeding and why there even developped an issue like addiction to fat f.e. is on a whole other side now is it.

Just a warning, you won't get anywhere though, if the notion that the value of human life is the precisely it's economic productivity, well, you see where the absolute Utilitarianism comes in? There is no value of human life, it's a value of economic productivity and unproductive things are literally worthless. Actually, less than worthless, they are wasteful.

That's why, once realizing I was trying to discuss with someone who unabashedly proclaims to be a strict Utilitarian, I checked myself out.

He isn't though,considering he himself values those that try at equal position as the valuable ones, which would get completely dosregarded if he were a strict utilitarian, due to them not succeding in the first place.

 Ghool wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
When your diet is not restricted by what is available but by what you can afford, 'good' dietary practices tend to fall by the wayside. And this goes double if you don't have the time to cook fresh for yourself because you're working multiple jobs.

Eating prepared meals, either from the supermarket or fast food chains is not in any way more affordable.
Nor is it any quicker. When it takes 24 minutes (just waiting) for me to get our family an order from McD’s and 35 bucks, it costs twice as much as a healthy home made meal. And a home cooked meal only takes 10 minutes more.

Food conglomerates and fast food chains have you fooled into thinking it’s cheaper and easier to eat out or eat prepared meals.
When it takes me 30 minutes to make a meal, and it costs less than 20 dollars with leftovers to take for lunch the next day, that’s not huge amount of time nor money. I feed my family of four for $500 on average per month.
That’s the same cost as eating out for half the time.

Even working multiple jobs and two kids I can still make healthy meals.
Stop buying into misinformation about eating healthy - it’s not expensive or time-consuming.
It only takes a bit of budgeting and even less time.
Massive food companies want everyone to believe that eating healthy is expensive and difficult.
They make more money that way.

For one it IS faster and easier. If you can't afford time and effort to cook, you REALLY can't afford the time and effort of kids!

Not Online!!! wrote:
He isn't though,considering he himself values those that try at equal position as the valuable ones, which would get completely dosregarded if he were a strict utilitarian, due to them not succeding in the first place.

That's the inherent contradiction, to which he can't (i.e. won't) consider. No one could realistically live as a strict Utilitarian, in the same way no one could be a strict Skeptic (because you'd die). Like how the apocryphal Pyrrho is portrayed.

It's just subjective normative claims branded as "objective superiority." Or objective morality, or whatever it gets called. There isn't anything objective about it, that's just a buzz-word to make a claim to authority. That's why I disengaged. There is no sense in it, because you can't have an actual conversation, it's just someone telling you why they are right (and you are "objectively," then, wrong).

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
See that's your perception of another perspective, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of viewpoints beyond your own. Which is why I'm not taking you seriously.

I'm still waiting for a reason why anyone who thinks "I don't know how to cook something in 2019 where I can literally youtube a step-by-step process on how to disassemble an aircraft engine or sew an entire Batman costume" should think that I'd be too terribly bothered about what they take seriously. Obviously, if you can't take your own health seriously enough, and your excuses are "I don't have time", "I don't have a stove/oven", or "I don't know how to learn"- well, taking me seriously should be your last concern. There's a lot more out there to prioritize.

At this point, if you don't have any of those things- there's not really much reason for you to be on a page discussing a game that involves $40.00 plastic space men.

It's not about not knowing how. It's about time and energy when working multiple jobs. Multiple HIGHLY PHYSICAL jobs.

 H wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
He isn't though,considering he himself values those that try at equal position as the valuable ones, which would get completely dosregarded if he were a strict utilitarian, due to them not succeding in the first place.

That's the inherent contradiction, to which he can't (i.e. won't) consider. No one could realistically live as a strict Utilitarian, in the same way no one could be a strict Skeptic (because you'd die). Like how the apocryphal Pyrrho is portrayed.

It's just subjective normative claims branded as "objective superiority." Or objective morality, or whatever it gets called. There isn't anything objective about it, that's just a buzz-word to make a claim to authority. That's why I disengaged. There is no sense in it, because you can't have an actual conversation, it's just someone telling you why they are right (and you are "objectively," then, wrong).

Tbf out of the viewpoint of the society you COULD regard his measurements as objectively enough. (Of course you could also vehemently refute them or apply other standards.

However that would require and argument and would therefore also need to a more measured statement because Else the Argument could be easily led ad absurdum via his own metric which would be in conflict witch his measurements standards.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Tbf out of the viewpoint of the society you COULD regard his measurements as objectively enough. (Of course you could also vehemently refute them or apply other standards.

However that would require and argument and would therefore also need to a more measured statement because Else the Argument could be easily led ad absurdum via his own metric which would be in conflict witch his measurements standards.

Sure, the "economic model" of, say, measuring the "value" of a human life as derived from it's economic productivity is "objective" enough, to qualify as objective. But that doesn't make it less morally repugnant, of course, if I don't accept the normative base assumption that this should be case. The notion that human existence is only valuable as a mean of economy just isn't going to pass my moral compass. He's free to make that case, he's free to sell the idea. I'm just not buying.

 Easy E wrote:
Where is the public kitchen in the library? How about the free printer? Also, who funds libraries?

The library has books. Some of them are cookbooks. I know, I borrowed one for the better part of 2012-2016. They didn't realize it was gone.

Are you referring to people who are homeless? I'm not sure I follow the acrobatics you're doing. I tell you what.

If the guy has no place to cook at all and lives in this odd little box, and doesn't know anyone at all who can show him how to cook, and he can't read, and he doesn't have the time or the energy to cook, and he's also stupid- I'll cut that one weirdo some slack, as long as he sits there and explains to me exactly how he wound up in this highly unusual predicament. I'll even feed him. Point this anomaly out to me, please.

 Vulcan wrote:
It's not about not knowing how. It's about time and energy when working multiple jobs. Multiple HIGHLY PHYSICAL jobs.

I wouldn't know anything about that after 20 years of active duty service, I guess you got me there.

(Psst, it's called 'a sandwich'. It's not too terrible for you. You don't have to cook it.)

Not Online!!! wrote:
And yes responsibility is something and of course the those that atleast tried to change are "more valuable"(if you even want to quantify people that way, and excuse me but that makes my skin crawl) but trying doesn't mean succeding and why there even developped an issue like addiction to fat f.e. is on a whole other side now is it.

The moment a grown adult that makes stupid decisions regarding his own health is my responsibility, then I fully advocate placing him in a facility where he is forced to exercise and his food is rationed. Because if we're going to make it society's responsibility to help people who can't take care of themselves, the people who are old enough and sound enough to know better- then I strongly recommend some sort of containment facility that can ensure they are made better. I would think this could even create jobs, as there could be aggressive individuals there to help motivate them with cattle prods or a lash or something.

Or better yet, we can ensure this never happens by making laws that keep people from eating certain things at certain times. We'll restrict access to it, and attempting to consume junk food without a proper ration voucher should result in fines or prison time.

Let's do the absurd thing where we place the burden of one's own well-being in the hands of the state. That always turns out great.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H wrote:
The notion that human existence is only valuable as a mean of economy just isn't going to pass my moral compass. He's free to make that case, he's free to sell the idea. I'm just not buying.

Until I have determined whether or not people have any real nutritional value, they are all worthless otherwise. So yes, the economic value is all we got.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Ghool wrote:

 H wrote:
Why does it have to be all of one thing or the other?

Why can't it partly be personal responsibility and partly systemic issues? Sure, it's hard to know just how much of any particular it is one or the other, but that doesn't mean it must be only one or the other.

Think about about, let's say we find out, definitively that it's 99% characterological and 1% systemic. Even in that case, why should be allow that systemically 1%? Is it that we should have a "litmus test" so the 99% can "feel better" about not falling into the systemic trap? If so, why not just legalize heroin or crack, or whatever, then we, who don't take it, can point at those who do and feel much better about our the fortitude of willpower vs. those degenerates? Sounds good for the "beautiful souls" but why, exactly, is that something that should be allowed?

Think about this as well, lets say some food company finds a way to make a drug that is literally more addictive than heroin or cocaine. It's is tasteless and so on. It doesn't get you high, but it does make you want more of it. So, it would just make you want to eat more of the food that it is in.

If such a thing were to exist, should it be allowed? Why or why not? You can say, "no such thing could or would exist!" but that is besides the point. We are addressing the philosophical point, about what should or should not be "allowed" (morally/ethically) in food.

To spice it, let us further consider just say the further case where this stuff, whatever it is, makes food "taste better" and has some long-term, negative health effect as well. Should it be allowed?

In other words, how much should we be delarcing that people need to battle systemic forces with their personal responsibility vs. not allowing systemically harmful things to exist at all?

It’s called sugar. And in tests run with rats addicted to cocaine, they chose sugar over the cocaine.
It exists. And it’s ubiquitous. And it’s in everything.
And it should be treated the same as alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, and any other regulated substance.

Dosis makes the poison.
I doubt banning suguar would solve the issue,but eliminating corn siroop, or implementing limits on refined suguar would go a long way.

Pretty sure he means regulating it as a substance that people can't be trusted to self-regulate with. Banning sugar is obviously ridiculous and no one with even the most superficial understanding would suggest that, so I think we are all on the same page here.

I think there is middle ground to be found here. Clearly having a more self sufficient populace is better for society, however, modern society is obsessed with convenience, and having everything handed to them immediately. This plays right into the hands of the fast food, ready meal industries, who also aided in its creation, sort of like a self fulfilling prophecy. But the fact is some people will always take that easy option.

I agree with AD in that eating healthy does not need to be expensive or difficult. I feed a family of 3 on c. £50 a week, and we could bring that down if we were more frugal. Things like stir frys, curries, bolognese, chillis or fajita wraps are all super easy to cook with a basic 2 base hob, and take between 10-30 minutes. I know because that's what I used to cook when I lived as a singly in barracks. I didn't want to spend ages cooking after work, but this was easy, and easy to make 2-3 servings to last a few days, or take for lunch.
To me it's a mindset. I know that I need to eat well to stay healthy, so it's worth putting the time in, regardless of how tired you may be. I get those who are saying people are tired after working lots of jobs etc. But standing in front of a hob for 20 mins is not difficult.

However, I also think that it can be difficult for some people, on my old camp, I lived in the village which surrounded it. The bus services into the nearest town were slowly decimated until they cancelled them all together. This meant that anyone in the village who couldn't drive, or had no access to a lift, had no way to get to the supermarket, only the village shop, which is more expensive and has fewer choice of fruit, veg, meats etc, so I could see how someone poorer could be forced to buy cheap ready meals in a situation like that.

There needs to be more education in life skills like cooking good food, how to dress properly, iron and repair clothing, fiscal responsibility etc, in the education system. god knows I'd rather my kid learnt those things than about 'gender and LGBT' stuff.

The moment a grown adult that makes stupid decisions regarding his own health is my responsibility, then I fully advocate placing him in a facility where he is forced to exercise and his food is rationed. Because if we're going to make it society's responsibility to help people who can't take care of themselves, the people who are old enough and sound enough to know better- then I strongly recommend some sort of containment facility that can ensure they are made better. I would think this could even create jobs, as there could be aggressive individuals there to help motivate them with cattle prods or a lash or something.

Okay, let me stop you right there. There is a difference between responsibility and Acountability that is important. Responsible government doesn't put the acountability on the wrong people.
Secondly, IF you would propperly apply your OWN measurments which you DON'T, then you COULDN'T VALUE those that try higher, becuase they are just as failed even moresoe due to beeing even LESS productive due to their fight with the addiction. That is btw the issue the people here have with your argument, because not only is it a questionable measurement for societey and value but ALSO hypocritical applied with a subjective morality which contradicts your own measurements.
Because if you were to apply your standards without the obvious double standard of your subjectivitey ALL these people , including handicapped ones are unworthy then out of your perspective.

But then again you also suggested camps with cattleprobs.
"hebsch de finger, gahts der ringer.
Hebsch d'Hand, regierschs Land." Much hu.

Or better yet, we can ensure this never happens by making laws that keep people from eating certain things at certain times. We'll restrict access to it, and attempting to consume junk food without a proper ration voucher should result in fines or prison time.

See above, an actual responsible government wouldn't hold you accountable for the cost, nor would it do your suggestion, it would instead seek to punish those that are actually the ones allowing for such practices in the food industry.

Let's do the absurd thing where we place the burden of one's own well-being in the hands of the state. That always turns out great.

Did I at any point suggest that the burden of the well beeing is in the state?
Is the burden in the people themselves?


The state is just evil and corrupt and non-responsible?
Actually on the last one: I am sorry but that minimalistic selfhelp bs is hillarious, because it is propagated that benefit from the lack of regulation. To the benefits of the established elites.

Newsflash: Your government is corrupt because it endorses but is not limited to:

>Burocratic polticisian due to patronage system
>Non responsibility to the base voter, beyond election campaigns.

And it is so since the start of the US, including census based voting rights, and later all sorts of shenanigans.Maybee , just maybee it isn't the state but the underlying ideology you should reflect on, maybee just maybee you should stop and think that there are interests at play that need a checks and balances system torwards the true sovereign of any nation.

There's some interesting discussion going on here, but I think it's time to introduce one of my new favorite concepts: Big Five personality types. I swear this will eventually be back to on topic, but this might be a bit rambly.

The internet is full of personality quizzes and tests of varying veracity. From Buzzfeed "Which Gilmore Girl are you" to the classic Meyers Briggs, personality classification is a proper cottage industry, especially if you chuck in the revival of astrology. However, even the best of them, like the Enneagram or Meyers Briggs, is based more on pseudoscience than anything reliable. But personality science is a legit branch of psychology, and they have come up with, if not an overarching theory, at least a collection of five personality traits which are measurable, consistent over a lifetime, and show up in all population types. this doesn't translate into super fun archetypes (I'm an ENTP, Type 8 Challenger, and a Slytherin FWIW), but it does provide far more reliable abilities to predict behavior.

As the name suggests, there are five axes in the Big Five system:
Introversion/Extroversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness
Neuroticism

Each of these leads to certain predictable behaviors. A Person with high openness will try new things, seek out new experiences, and be more comfortable with change. A person high in Conscientiousness will be hard working, reliable, and organized. Neuroticism is balanced by emotional stability to control emotion. Not all are truly neutral, as high neuroticism tends to be a problem, as does very low Conscientiousness. Still though, if you've ever had a coworker who always seems grouchy, but does very good work, that's a person with low agreeableness but high Conscientiousness.

More than anything else, the Big 5 can often predict both a person's politics and how persuadable they can be. A person with high Conscientiousness, somebody who really emphasis hard work and self discipline, is more likely to be conservative, as is a person with low openness. The character Red from That 70's Show is an almost perfect portrayal of a person with very high Conscientiousness, very low agreeableness and openness, and generally conservative views. Generally, more open people are more likely to examine their own beliefs, and they are also more comfortable with change.

These traits also generally don't change from childhood to adulthood, which means that a child with low Conscientiousness is likely to become an adult with what we'd normallly call a poor work ethic. of course, adaptability and flexibility are keyed to low Conscientiousness. So, hypothetically, a child that grew up in a poor household who had to learn to adapt, make quick decisions, and be spontaneous, might not be able to easily grow into a hyper focused adult. Of course, the world is full of successful people who don't work super hard, perhaps because they can leverage that flexibility. Most of the Big five are split roughly 50/50 between genetics and upbringing (based on twin studies).

So, this means that a "lazy" adult probably had little choice in the matter. Between genes and home life, they developed a work ethic or lack thereof in the same way we develop other aspects of ourselves like height, eye color, or IQ.

Now, one thing that we see a lot is that people view their own personality, which usually has been a big part of their success (however minimal), as good. So, if hard work, being organized, and always giving 100% paid off, you will often see that as valuable and even virtuous. Likewise, if you are pretty disagreeable, and you see the world full of liars and thieves, you will reject as virtuous ideals of kindness and empathy.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Ghool wrote:

 H wrote:
Why does it have to be all of one thing or the other?

Why can't it partly be personal responsibility and partly systemic issues? Sure, it's hard to know just how much of any particular it is one or the other, but that doesn't mean it must be only one or the other.

Think about about, let's say we find out, definitively that it's 99% characterological and 1% systemic. Even in that case, why should be allow that systemically 1%? Is it that we should have a "litmus test" so the 99% can "feel better" about not falling into the systemic trap? If so, why not just legalize heroin or crack, or whatever, then we, who don't take it, can point at those who do and feel much better about our the fortitude of willpower vs. those degenerates? Sounds good for the "beautiful souls" but why, exactly, is that something that should be allowed?

Think about this as well, lets say some food company finds a way to make a drug that is literally more addictive than heroin or cocaine. It's is tasteless and so on. It doesn't get you high, but it does make you want more of it. So, it would just make you want to eat more of the food that it is in.

If such a thing were to exist, should it be allowed? Why or why not? You can say, "no such thing could or would exist!" but that is besides the point. We are addressing the philosophical point, about what should or should not be "allowed" (morally/ethically) in food.

To spice it, let us further consider just say the further case where this stuff, whatever it is, makes food "taste better" and has some long-term, negative health effect as well. Should it be allowed?

In other words, how much should we be delarcing that people need to battle systemic forces with their personal responsibility vs. not allowing systemically harmful things to exist at all?

It’s called sugar. And in tests run with rats addicted to cocaine, they chose sugar over the cocaine.
It exists. And it’s ubiquitous. And it’s in everything.
And it should be treated the same as alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, and any other regulated substance.

Dosis makes the poison.
I doubt banning suguar would solve the issue,but eliminating corn siroop, or implementing limits on refined suguar would go a long way.

Pretty sure he means regulating it as a substance that people can't be trusted to self-regulate with. Banning sugar is obviously ridiculous and no one with even the most superficial understanding would suggest that, so I think we are all on the same page here.

Yes, absolutely.
I’m of the mind that, at the very least, sugar should be labelled as almost all other ingredients on nutritional labels.
If you notice any nutritional label on foods, there’s a percentage for all vitamins, minerals, fats, sodium, potassium, etc.
The only thing on that label that has no daily value percentage is sugar. And the reason for this is because of sugar lobbying. The parallels between the tobacco industry and sugar industry is frightening.
You can’t ban a substance that can be abused. That never works.
But forcing the companies that make sugar so ubiquitous in our food chain need to be held accountable in some other way.
Without having any sort of daily maximum or daily ‘healthy’ value of sugar, allows them to put as much of the stuff into a food product as they want.
Look at the epidemic that is Type 2 Diabetes for proof.
It’s a substance that can and is easily abused. And not by the people that buy the food.
It’s the companies that make it and fill it with sugar that need to be held accountable for upholding certain standards.

That said, people just need to be a little more aware and twist their wrists and start reading labels.
A can of Coke contains over 11 teaspoons of sugar, and kids are allowed to freely buy and drink the stuff.
11 teaspoons of sugar in a single can, and most soda drinkers are downing 4 or 5 a day.
And everyone wonders why Type 2 Diabetes is an epidemic?

Maybe its a local thing, but the health lobby has sneakily undermined the sugar lobby when it comes to % dose by labeling "added sugars" as their own item which DO have a percentage. Obviously not ideal and classically inefficient, but it is something. And I think it is as important to note steps forward as it is steps back.

Out here they list the % daily intake of sugar. If something naturally has a lot of sugar but no added sugar, sometimes the manufacturer will list "sugar" and "added sugar" to highlight that they didn't put in extra.

But I don't know how effective it is, plenty of fatties over here as well. When you read that a can of soda has 45% of your daily intake of sugar, you wonder if it should be a controlled substance that's illegal to give to kids. Anything that has more than 1/3 your daily intake in a single serving is a bit crazy.

As a fizzy drink fan, I mix my own with greatly reduced sugar, but I still probably drink too much.

its like anything in life, it requires moderation. I love sweets, chocolate, fizzy drinks, donuts, whatever else, but I also know that if I constantly eat them, I will turn into a fat mess.

what that means is that I have those sorts of things every now and then. Me and my Wife will have a dessert in the evening, usually an ice cream cone or something similar, and the odd chocolate bar during the day. Cokes and sugary drinks are a rarity... once every couple of weeks, occasionally with a rum.

I also work in a fairly physical profession, and exercise regularly.

Unfortunately, some people cant moderate. I know folks at work who drink a can of coke a day, or more. even worse are the cans of monster, mountain dew etc. its not good for people at all.

I honestly don't know how Americans aren't all super fat. everything seemed to be sweet and sugar filled out there..even the glazes on the wings, the sauces for the burgers etc.

I definitely put on a few extra pounds while I was living in the US, even though as a whole I was actually a lot healthier as I spent more time exercising and going on hikes (fatter, but a lot fitter).

Though I think a lot of the problem with sugar is also depression related.

In my experience when the depression gets bad, I just stop giving a crap about what I eat, and will go long periods of time just eating take away food or microwave dinners. It's not even comfort eating, often it's just the easiest thing to do when you can barely bring yourself to get out of bed let alone prepare a healthy meal.

But then I have other health problems that also screw me over, maybe it's different for other folk.

Yeah, I can't say Ive ever experienced that sort of thing in life. However, I believe that those who things are linked to certain elements of modern life itself.

I was thinking about my grandparents, and how they lived.. My old man was one of six. My grandad drove a truck and my grandmother was unemployed, a housewife, stay at home mum, whatever you want to call it with whatever lens you're viewing it through. But the point is they managed, and ready meals and all the other things we've spoken of didn't really exist back in the 1950s and 60s. My point is, they didn't have time to worry, they just had to get on with it, as did the vast majority of the population. So part of me wonders that if a lot of the problems we face in modern life are in part, due to the fact that we have more convenience in pretty much everything.

We have devices that give us anything we want at the touch of a button, everything from take away food to potential sexual partners. We don't even have to worry about having children anymore due to contraception and abortion. So in theory everything should be great, all this free time, yet more people seem to be unhappy than ever.

And before anyone jumps on me with the whole insensitivity thing, I'm not downplaying mental illnesses in any way, it's just a train of thought I've been having lately.

The conveniences have just meant people require less personal time which means employers can leverage them into working more hours.

Think of how household conveniences have encouraged females into the work place.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Yeah, I can't say Ive ever experienced that sort of thing in life. However, I believe that those who things are linked to certain elements of modern life itself.

I was thinking about my grandparents, and how they lived.. My old man was one of six. My grandad drove a truck and my grandmother was unemployed, a housewife, stay at home mum, whatever you want to call it with whatever lens you're viewing it through. But the point is they managed, and ready meals and all the other things we've spoken of didn't really exist back in the 1950s and 60s. My point is, they didn't have time to worry, they just had to get on with it, as did the vast majority of the population. So part of me wonders that if a lot of the problems we face in modern life are in part, due to the fact that we have more convenience in pretty much everything.

We have devices that give us anything we want at the touch of a button, everything from take away food to potential sexual partners. We don't even have to worry about having children anymore due to contraception and abortion. So in theory everything should be great, all this free time, yet more people seem to be unhappy than ever.

And before anyone jumps on me with the whole insensitivity thing, I'm not downplaying mental illnesses in any way, it's just a train of thought I've been having lately.

They worked in a period where almost every family could survive on a single full time wage. Now vast numbers of people struggle on two - and have double the number of hours they're obliged to spend outside the home. That's the biggest difference across that generational gap.

That's what I mean, we have more time, and thus more time to worry about things. People weren't having moral, emotional or existential crises back then because they didn't have time. By 21 they were usually already parents and had been in the workforce for a number of years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:


They worked in a period where almost every family could survive on a single full time wage. Now vast numbers of people struggle on two - and have double the number of hours they're obliged to spend outside the home. That's the biggest difference across that generational gap.

But wheres the disconnect? How could my grandad provide for a wife and 6 kids while doing a menial ish job, but people now can't afford to pay for themselves in a time where we're supposed to be more affluent than ever? This is a genuine question.. As it seems backwards to me.

Because jobs no longer provide a living wage, housing costs have soared, as have household bills etc.

And with modern housing, people are less likely to have a garden in which they could grow veg and that.

Essentially, our country has grown ever more expensive to live in, and incomes simply haven’t (arguably haven’t been allowed) to keep up.

Consider my situation a few years back. Working 40 hours a week for minimum wage. My rent at the time was £450.00 for a tiny one bed flat. By the time I’d paid my bills, bought food and necessities etc, I’d be lucky to have £200 left to myself each month.

Changed jobs, and doubled (genuinely) my income. Life is far easier. But my first train ticket that month? £450.00. If my parents weren’t doing very alright and stepped in, I couldn’t have taken my current career, and since then near tripled my income. Or had a nice, two bedroom place and a flatmate to help spread them bills further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for retirement? I’ve now a pretty decent pension pot accruing (£41,000ish over seven years). And when Dad goes to see Mum again, I’ll inherit half of everything.

Whilst it’s unlikely I’ll be able to retire to where I am right now, that should provide enough for me to buy somewhere else in the country, lock, stock and barrel.

So, should I live long enough to retire (Mum was 68 when she died earlier this year), and provided I can do that ‘buy something, somewhere’, I should be roughly OK. But if the house plan falls through? I may not be able to retire, because I’ll be stuck renting, and that’s hella expensive.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Consider my situation a few years back. Working 40 hours a week for minimum wage. My rent at the time was £450.00 for a tiny one bed flat. By the time I’d paid my bills, bought food and necessities etc, I’d be lucky to have £200 left to myself each month.

And at that you did better than many; there's a lot of people who don't have $200 a month left after rent to cover bills, food, transportation, health care, and other necessities. Never mind having twenty CENTS left after covering all that...

To my credit, I thought this thread was going to devolve into "Socialism to solve the issue because feth yeah socialism!" like every other fiscal discussion on this site as it seems to be the only political hot button that isn't immediately virus bombed from orbit. I never expected it to be people who argue FOR Darwinistic principles when it comes to chiding people for religion to then decry Darwinistic principles because it makes us mean.

You know what humanity REALLY needs? More natural predators.

Mario wrote:

Just Tony wrote:I went through this myself on accident. I was almost through my Associates program in Forensics when the Chem Tech Dean/whatever informed us of the massive glut in the market of Forensics qualified personnel. Had the Registrar's office pointed that out in my initial counseling, maybe I could have redirected. CNC Machining maybe? As I wound up at Caterpillar as a Machinist, it would have worked out MUCH better in the long run. Instead I have loans I'm paying on a degree I didn't finish because I couldn't have even used it once I had it.

Isn't your anecdote the best example for you getting lucky a few times with some information and you getting some of your choices somewhat right? That doesn't sound like just hard work did it for you? You could have worked harder than any person on earth and ended up as a whatever forensics people do and be financially less stable if you hadn't accidentally gotten that information. All that tells me is that in addition to whatever hard work, initiative, and smart choices you had, luck was also a big factor in you leading a better life than what you initially thought possible.

Here you are in a situation you think is better than it could have been (because you randomly got some information that was useful) but also worse than it could have been (if only you had known earlier). That's kinda the point when people say that it's not always possible and that not all factors are within your power to change just by the magic of hard work, initiative, and smart(er) choices. And it's often much more complicated and harder for people than missing some bit of information they can actually act on.

The only thing there that had anything to do with luck was someone asking about job market prospects IN CLASS when all of us should have had the foresight to ask it WHEN WE APPLIED TO THE COLLEGE. That's not luck, that's lack of planning. I had the initiative and ambition to actively seek to better my life, I simply didn't do my research...

 Just Tony wrote:
To my credit, I thought this thread was going to devolve into "Socialism to solve the issue because feth yeah socialism!" like every other fiscal discussion on this site as it seems to be the only political hot button that isn't immediately virus bombed from orbit. I never expected it to be people who argue FOR Darwinistic principles when it comes to chiding people for religion to then decry Darwinistic principles because it makes us mean.

You know what humanity REALLY needs? More natural predators.

The whole point of that political persuasion is that you get to have your cake, and eat it.

 Just Tony wrote:
I never expected it to be people who argue FOR Darwinistic principles when it comes to chiding people for religion to then decry Darwinistic principles because it makes us mean.

You're going to have to defend that statement. Who did that and where?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Until I have determined whether or not people have any real nutritional value, they are all worthless otherwise. So yes, the economic value is all we got.

Except, one, people do have "nutritional value" since we can and do know that people could and have been eaten before (just avoid the brain). What stops us from this mode of being then? You are suggesting, if you (which is very convenient that your approval is the proof of what "we got" and what we don't) find the people have nutritional value, then we should all be cannibals?

Why, if people's only value is their economic productivity why should we suffer disabled people to live? They are not economically productive.

This whole thing is seem like such a near-text book example of the "appear to nature fallacy" and Hume's Is-Ought distinction that is is nearly hard to believe anyone would actually espouse it openly, let alone entrench themselves in it to such a degree. Then again, what am I even suggesting?

 Just Tony wrote:
To my credit, I thought this thread was going to devolve into "Socialism to solve the issue because feth yeah socialism!" like every other fiscal discussion on this site as it seems to be the only political hot button that isn't immediately virus bombed from orbit. I never expected it to be people who argue FOR Darwinistic principles when it comes to chiding people for religion to then decry Darwinistic principles because it makes us mean.

You know what humanity REALLY needs? More natural predators.

Oh my. Are you trying to get the thread locked? Because this seems like a half dozen passive-aggressive sorta-insults/bait comments crammed into three sentences.

 H wrote:


This whole thing is seem like such a near-text book example of the "appear to nature fallacy" and Hume's Is-Ought distinction that is is nearly hard to believe anyone would actually espouse it openly, let alone entrench themselves in it to such a degree. Then again, what am I even suggesting?

Sounds like something with a degree in basket weaving would say, and we don't need none of that!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sounds like something with a degree in basket weaving would say, and we don't need none of that!

Would that I had done something as useful as basket-weaving!

 H wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sounds like something with a degree in basket weaving would say, and we don't need none of that!

Would that I had done something as useful as basket-weaving!

Sub-aquatic fiber arts.

 Nevelon wrote:

 H wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sounds like something with a degree in basket weaving would say, and we don't need none of that!

Would that I had done something as useful as basket-weaving!

Sub-aquatic fiber arts.

That is intolerant against moist-fiber artists. You are a bigot.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
That's what I mean, we have more time, and thus more time to worry about things. People weren't having moral, emotional or existential crises back then because they didn't have time. By 21 they were usually already parents and had been in the workforce for a number of years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:


They worked in a period where almost every family could survive on a single full time wage. Now vast numbers of people struggle on two - and have double the number of hours they're obliged to spend outside the home. That's the biggest difference across that generational gap.

But wheres the disconnect? How could my grandad provide for a wife and 6 kids while doing a menial ish job, but people now can't afford to pay for themselves in a time where we're supposed to be more affluent than ever? This is a genuine question.. As it seems backwards to me.

This is what people mean when they talk about cost of living increasing while wages stagnate.If the two kept pace, it wouldn't be an issue, but as CoL rises for things like housing prices, and cost of renting rises faster than wages. So you have a rise in two income households households to compensate. But then when the standard life events start occurring, like having kids, many people are not in the situation where they can sacrifice one of those incomes in order to provide full time child care. But on the other hand, child care itself is also prohibitively expensive, to the point where it can consume one earner's entire take home wage.

An example of this can be seen in quite a few big cities, like London, San Francisco, New York, where the wealthy purchase housing as an investment, driving up prices and also potentially restricting availability. So working class with jobs in the cities are either having to struggle with high housing costs, or moving farther and farther from the city, which creates its own systemic problems. San Francisco is kind of emblematic of the issue, with how geographically restricted it is, how many big companies are located there, and how far away average employees are forced to look for housing, just so that they can find a CoL their salaries support.

Speak for yourself. Not a problem as long as I don't commit suicide or get addicted to pain killers.

Also, it's rather absurd of that article to attribute this to economic stress and "decline of the middle class in America". In fact the middle class is only declining because so many people are moving up into the upper class.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/06/21/sure-the-middle-class-is-shrinking-30-of-americans-are-too-rich-to-be-middle-class-now/#347dda9621c8

So you're saying the divide is growing even more?

Given that Forbes.com is a blog site and that link itself is marked as 'opinion' that article really has nothing relevant or fact based to offer.

 Bookwrack wrote:
Given that Forbes.com is a blog site and that link itself is marked as 'opinion' that article really has nothing relevant or fact based to offer.

It does, actually, if you read it. Evidently you didn't read it.

Also, it's pretty telling that you've evidently never heard of Forbes.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Speak for yourself. Not a problem as long as I don't commit suicide or get addicted to pain killers.

This right here shows a significant disconnect from personal standpoint and how reality works. The best I can offer is to say that just because you do not see how it affects you, or do not see how it is a problem, does not mean your perspective is true.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Speak for yourself. Not a problem as long as I don't commit suicide or get addicted to pain killers.

In other words, a complete lack of empathy on your part.

Fascinating.

Empathy isn't required to have a rational debate. It can and should be considered, but too often these days everything seems to be about 'being kind', disregarding everything else. Then all arguments become appeals to pity and we end up where we are now.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Speak for yourself. Not a problem as long as I don't commit suicide or get addicted to pain killers.

In other words, a complete lack of empathy on your part.

Fascinating.

Not all all. The original post said this was a reason why I would never retire. It isn't. I was just pointing out that the original poster was incorrect that this would prevent me from ever retiring, since I can obviously make choices which will result in this issue not affecting me.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Empathy isn't required to have a rational debate. It can and should be considered, but too often these days everything seems to be about 'being kind', disregarding everything else. Then all arguments become appeals to pity and we end up where we are now.

Rationality without empathy is meaningless. No human is irrational; everyone acts to the best of their abilities to achieve goals that they believe prudent. Empathy is what allows you to understand another person's rationale.

My experience is the complete opposite to yours: there's a lot of charlatans out there who keep harping on about rationality as some sort of ultimate good without understanding that it is not a synonym for "truth". Too often, "being rational" is conflated with "agreeing with me". It is completely possible for two people to behave in a perfectly rational manner and come to opposite conclusions to the same conundrum.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
That's what I mean, we have more time, and thus more time to worry about things. People weren't having moral, emotional or existential crises back then because they didn't have time. By 21 they were usually already parents and had been in the workforce for a number of years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:


They worked in a period where almost every family could survive on a single full time wage. Now vast numbers of people struggle on two - and have double the number of hours they're obliged to spend outside the home. That's the biggest difference across that generational gap.

But wheres the disconnect? How could my grandad provide for a wife and 6 kids while doing a menial ish job, but people now can't afford to pay for themselves in a time where we're supposed to be more affluent than ever? This is a genuine question.. As it seems backwards to me.

Average incomes were far higher relative to outgoings. That's it.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Speak for yourself. Not a problem as long as I don't commit suicide or get addicted to pain killers.

In other words, a complete lack of empathy on your part.

Fascinating.

He is taking the title of the thread literally. As in "Another Reason Albino Squirrel Will Never Retire..." As evidenced by:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
The original post said this was a reason why I would never retire. It isn't. I was just pointing out that the original poster was incorrect that this would prevent me from ever retiring, since I can obviously make choices which will result in this issue not affecting me.

I am quite sure not the meaning the OP intended, since "you" in this instance is being used in a non-specific manner, but within that context Squirrel's statement makes sense. It comes across like he is being deliberately obtuse to make a point, but I don't know if that's really his intent.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
what that means is that I have those sorts of things every now and then. Me and my Wife will have a dessert in the evening, usually an ice cream cone or something similar, and the odd chocolate bar during the day. Cokes and sugary drinks are a rarity... once every couple of weeks, occasionally with a rum.

Vanilla Coke is my weakness. I used to go through 2 cases a week. Then my health showed it. I cut them out, and I shredded weight so fast- I went to my doctor to make sure something wasn't actually wrong with me. No, sodas are just REALLY bad for you (and the reason most people who regularly eat fast food are in such poor health, the sodas are worse than the food).

Because I cut them out, I consider them a 'special treat'. I set a goal and work for it, and reward myself with a Vanilla coke. Maybe it's psychological, but it seems to just be so much more enjoyable when it's a special thing and not a part of the routine. It actually makes me very happy to have one and enjoy it, as simple a thing as it is.

I also work in a fairly physical profession, and exercise regularly.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I honestly don't know how Americans aren't all super fat. everything seemed to be sweet and sugar filled out there..even the glazes on the wings, the sauces for the burgers etc.

Well, I think if you came for a visit you might uh... realize something. "Fat" is pretty common. To a point where you can be as butt-ugly as I am, but because I'm in shape... dating isn't hard in terms of finding women. However, on the flipside- it's even easier for women that aren't obese, so any 'advantage' I have, they have it even better. I've found that it's much easier overseas for me, to be honest. And I love my country, I love that we have these nice things we can enjoy and how awesome they are. Yeah, MURICA! FREEDOM! and all that, but I've always believed that freedom is responsibility.

 H wrote:
Except, one, people do have "nutritional value" since we can and do know that people could and have been eaten before (just avoid the brain). What stops us from this mode of being then?

Ever looked into the side effects? Yeah, man- people are disgusting and will make you sick. I looked into cannibalism... for reasons. Don't think too much on it. But yeah, let's put it this way- there's a reason most 'man eating sharks' just bite out a chunk and then piss off. Most of the time, when people are eaten (by people or predators), it's desperation.

 H wrote:
You are suggesting, if you (which is very convenient that your approval is the proof of what "we got" and what we don't) find the people have nutritional value, then we should all be cannibals?

Yes.

Those running shoes look a little bit more appealing now, don't they?

 H wrote:
Why, if people's only value is their economic productivity why should we suffer disabled people to live? They are not economically productive.

Way to miss the part where I pointed out "Can't" and "Won't". There's a huge difference.

 H wrote:
This whole thing is seem like such a near-text book example of the "appear to nature fallacy" and Hume's Is-Ought distinction that is is nearly hard to believe anyone would actually espouse it openly, let alone entrench themselves in it to such a degree. Then again, what am I even suggesting?

Did you Google those? Good job, if you did. You read those better than you did what I was actually saying.

nfe wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
That's what I mean, we have more time, and thus more time to worry about things. People weren't having moral, emotional or existential crises back then because they didn't have time. By 21 they were usually already parents and had been in the workforce for a number of years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:


They worked in a period where almost every family could survive on a single full time wage. Now vast numbers of people struggle on two - and have double the number of hours they're obliged to spend outside the home. That's the biggest difference across that generational gap.

But wheres the disconnect? How could my grandad provide for a wife and 6 kids while doing a menial ish job, but people now can't afford to pay for themselves in a time where we're supposed to be more affluent than ever? This is a genuine question.. As it seems backwards to me.

Average incomes were far higher relative to outgoings. That's it.

Part of that is because my grandparents lived more humbly. Had they purchased a large house, owned multiple vehicles, put in an expensive kitchen, fancy appliances, etc., living on one income would have been a lot more challenging. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Our appetite for 'stuff' is much stronger now.

 gorgon wrote:
Part of that is because my grandparents lived more humbly. Had they purchased a large house, owned multiple vehicles, put in an expensive kitchen, fancy appliances, etc., living on one income would have been a lot more challenging. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Our appetite for 'stuff' is much stronger now.

They were simpler times. Going out on a date now vs. back then? A lot of women these days think you're a serial killer if you just wanna get something to eat and go somewhere private and spend time together and talk. Back in our grandparents' day, and even our parents... that was pretty normal.

I'm not even that old, and after speaking to my cousin's 18-year-old son about what 'dating' entails for his generation.... I'm glad I'm not his age. I'm a huge fan of money, so I'd probably end up being a virgin until I went to Thailand. But I'd at least have money.

gorgon wrote:

nfe wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
That's what I mean, we have more time, and thus more time to worry about things. People weren't having moral, emotional or existential crises back then because they didn't have time. By 21 they were usually already parents and had been in the workforce for a number of years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:


They worked in a period where almost every family could survive on a single full time wage. Now vast numbers of people struggle on two - and have double the number of hours they're obliged to spend outside the home. That's the biggest difference across that generational gap.

But wheres the disconnect? How could my grandad provide for a wife and 6 kids while doing a menial ish job, but people now can't afford to pay for themselves in a time where we're supposed to be more affluent than ever? This is a genuine question.. As it seems backwards to me.

Average incomes were far higher relative to outgoings. That's it.

Part of that is because my grandparents lived more humbly. Had they purchased a large house, owned multiple vehicles, put in an expensive kitchen, fancy appliances, etc., living on one income would have been a lot more challenging. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Our appetite for 'stuff' is much stronger now.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Part of that is because my grandparents lived more humbly. Had they purchased a large house, owned multiple vehicles, put in an expensive kitchen, fancy appliances, etc., living on one income would have been a lot more challenging. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Our appetite for 'stuff' is much stronger now.

They were simpler times. Going out on a date now vs. back then? A lot of women these days think you're a serial killer if you just wanna get something to eat and go somewhere private and spend time together and talk. Back in our grandparents' day, and even our parents... that was pretty normal.

I'm not even that old, and after speaking to my cousin's 18-year-old son about what 'dating' entails for his generation.... I'm glad I'm not his age. I'm a huge fan of money, so I'd probably end up being a virgin until I went to Thailand. But I'd at least have money.

I think there's a lot of biscuit tin history at work here.

nfe wrote:
I think there's a lot of biscuit tin history at work here.

I'm sure they did more than 'park and talk', if that's what you mean. It was 'Netflix and Chill' of the time.

 gorgon wrote:

nfe wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
That's what I mean, we have more time, and thus more time to worry about things. People weren't having moral, emotional or existential crises back then because they didn't have time. By 21 they were usually already parents and had been in the workforce for a number of years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:


They worked in a period where almost every family could survive on a single full time wage. Now vast numbers of people struggle on two - and have double the number of hours they're obliged to spend outside the home. That's the biggest difference across that generational gap.

But wheres the disconnect? How could my grandad provide for a wife and 6 kids while doing a menial ish job, but people now can't afford to pay for themselves in a time where we're supposed to be more affluent than ever? This is a genuine question.. As it seems backwards to me.

Average incomes were far higher relative to outgoings. That's it.

Part of that is because my grandparents lived more humbly. Had they purchased a large house, owned multiple vehicles, put in an expensive kitchen, fancy appliances, etc., living on one income would have been a lot more challenging. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Our appetite for 'stuff' is much stronger now.

Then try to explain those of us living humbly these days - renting a run down place, a single vehicle, no fancy phones, or giant TVs or any of the ‘stuff’ that supposedly makes us broke working two jobs, with a three income household, can barely make ends meet?
My appetite for stuff is not very big, and if I want anything I have to save and budget.
How is it that my life is so much more extravagant? Because my grandparents lived way better than my family of 4 does. They had 3 cars, a huge house and 7 kids. All on a single income.

I think it has very little to do with an appetite for stuff. I’d just like to buy a house and it seems so far out of reach it’s nigh-impossible.

 Ghool wrote:
Then try to explain those of us living humbly these days - renting a run down place, a single vehicle, no fancy phones, or giant TVs or any of the ‘stuff’ that supposedly makes us broke working two jobs, with a three income household, can barely make ends meet?
My appetite for stuff is not very big, and if I want anything I have to save and budget.
How is it that my life is so much more extravagant? Because my grandparents lived way better than my family of 4 does. They had 3 cars, a huge house and 7 kids. All on a single income.

I might be able to explain, depending on a few factors- but mostly it relates to the things I highlighted and underlined, and in which order these things occurred. And you might wanna be prepared for some brutal truth. Also, you can have a dozen incomes, it doesn't matter if they're minimum wage jobs with low hours or selling Scentsy products in a rural area.

I'll use a random made-up person, that is entirely based on several persons I've encountered in my life.

Woman complaining because her minimum wage job she's worked for 10 years doesn't feed her 3 or more children. No shortage of these examples.

First of all, if someone is pulling in minimum wage or really awful wages after 10 years or more, then they're probably not really capable of doing anything more than minimum wage jobs- in the eyes of their employers, at least- so, it's possible that one or two employers are just jerks. It's possible also that the people who've observed this person's work ethic and performance have a pretty good reason for not wasting money on them.

Well, having a kid out of wedlock while working a minimum wage job sounds like a real bad idea. However, one I can tolerate being... well, unforeseen, perhaps a fluke or something (even though I never met someone that accidentally tripped and fell on a penis and got pregnant). But after that, you can't sit and tell me you didn't think it was gonna be so hard so you pushed out more. No, that's not how kids work- the debuffs on the bank account stack.

Additionally, multiple persons living in an absolutely awful situation and having a kid, without adequate means to travel to work to produce more income? At that point, if they "we couldn't afford birth control" I get disgusted because I hear "well, we couldn't put together enough money to prevent a child from coming into the world, so we just said 'screw it, taxpayers will get it' and decided to bring a child into an absolutely miserable situation that will make him one day resent us!"

But hey, people gonna sex because that's what people do. I get it. But maybe moving in together, and not working out some kind of plan to mitigate a potential bad situation or having a fall-back plan... is not a good idea.

Granted, I also understand that "bad things can happen" and screw people who were otherwise doing okay. And that's a tough road, and can put a family in a terrible situation. To which I sympathize.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

nfe wrote:
I think there's a lot of biscuit tin history at work here.

I'm sure they did more than 'park and talk', if that's what you mean. It was 'Netflix and Chill' of the time.

I mean the romanticised images of quaint and simple times. The nostalgia for an age that never existed kinda stuff.

nfe wrote:
I mean the romanticised images of quaint and simple times. The nostalgia for an age that never existed kinda stuff.

Would you be calling my Grandfather a liar, or simply refusing to accept that not everyone's life was as miserable as you'd prefer it to be?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Ghool wrote:
Then try to explain those of us living humbly these days - renting a run down place, a single vehicle, no fancy phones, or giant TVs or any of the ‘stuff’ that supposedly makes us broke working two jobs, with a three income household, can barely make ends meet?
My appetite for stuff is not very big, and if I want anything I have to save and budget.
How is it that my life is so much more extravagant? Because my grandparents lived way better than my family of 4 does. They had 3 cars, a huge house and 7 kids. All on a single income.

I might be able to explain, depending on a few factors- but mostly it relates to the things I highlighted and underlined, and in which order these things occurred. And you might wanna be prepared for some brutal truth. Also, you can have a dozen incomes, it doesn't matter if they're minimum wage jobs with low hours or selling Scentsy products in a rural area.

I'll use a random made-up person, that is entirely based on several persons I've encountered in my life.

Woman complaining because her minimum wage job she's worked for 10 years doesn't feed her 3 or more children. No shortage of these examples.

First of all, if someone is pulling in minimum wage or really awful wages after 10 years or more, then they're probably not really capable of doing anything more than minimum wage jobs- in the eyes of their employers, at least- so, it's possible that one or two employers are just jerks. It's possible also that the people who've observed this person's work ethic and performance have a pretty good reason for not wasting money on them.

Well, having a kid out of wedlock while working a minimum wage job sounds like a real bad idea. However, one I can tolerate being... well, unforeseen, perhaps a fluke or something (even though I never met someone that accidentally tripped and fell on a penis and got pregnant). But after that, you can't sit and tell me you didn't think it was gonna be so hard so you pushed out more. No, that's not how kids work- the debuffs on the bank account stack.

Additionally, multiple persons living in an absolutely awful situation and having a kid, without adequate means to travel to work to produce more income? At that point, if they "we couldn't afford birth control" I get disgusted because I hear "well, we couldn't put together enough money to prevent a child from coming into the world, so we just said 'screw it, taxpayers will get it' and decided to bring a child into an absolutely miserable situation that will make him one day resent us!"

But hey, people gonna sex because that's what people do. I get it. But maybe moving in together, and not working out some kind of plan to mitigate a potential bad situation or having a fall-back plan... is not a good idea.

Granted, I also understand that "bad things can happen" and screw people who were otherwise doing okay. And that's a tough road, and can put a family in a terrible situation. To which I sympathize.

The point being considered is that two generations ago (or one, in many cases) it was perfectly possible to support a family on a single low working class wage. The issue isn't that someone struggles to find more lucrative work, it's that the people who can't find it are being priced out of existing.

Edit: for clarity, I'm not even necessarily arguing that people should be able to support a family on a single low wage, only that they could and now can't. It's worth bearing on mind given the frequency with which the argument about modern laziness and greed is made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

nfe wrote:
I mean the romanticised images of quaint and simple times. The nostalgia for an age that never existed kinda stuff.

Would you be calling my Grandfather a liar, or simply refusing to accept that not everyone's life was as miserable as you'd prefer it to be?

Neither.

nfe wrote:
The point being considered is that two generations ago (or one, in many cases) it was perfectly possible to support a family on a single low working class wage. The issue isn't that someone struggles to find more lucrative work, it's that the people who can't find it are being priced out of existing.

It's not impossible to do that still. It's also not very pleasant. It sucks. A lot.

Hell of a motivator, ain't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:
Neither.

Well, this is also a generation of people that saw two wars (WW2 and Korea). So the times may seem simpler because they were made of sterner stuff back then.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

nfe wrote:
The point being considered is that two generations ago (or one, in many cases) it was perfectly possible to support a family on a single low working class wage. The issue isn't that someone struggles to find more lucrative work, it's that the people who can't find it are being priced out of existing.

It's not impossible to do that still. It's also not very pleasant. It sucks. A lot.

Hell of a motivator, ain't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:
Neither.

Well, this is also a generation of people that saw two wars (WW2 and Korea). So the times may seem simpler because they were made of sterner stuff back then.

Biscuit tin again.

nfe wrote:
Biscuit tin again.

Okay, well- we weren't getting bombed here.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

nfe wrote:
Biscuit tin again.

Okay, well- we weren't getting bombed here.

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

I think the ''sterner stuff' lines that is so often trotted out about previous generations is largely meaningless at best and half-remembered self-agrandising (or vicarious), romantic rubbish at worst. Plenty terrified people hid and cried their way through those wars. Plenty of them were appallingly executed for having the audacity to be scared. Plenty millennials enlist today. There hasn't been a fundamental change in the human ability to bear difficulty or confront challenge. There has been widening education that makes many question the justness of their lot, that's all.

Edit: to stay on topic - the conversation about the shifting ability of individuals/families to sustain themselves with similar forms of work is the same thing. People aren't simply demanding more, they aren't fundamentally needier or more demanding than their grandparents, they just want to live a similarly comfortable life (in their context) and can't.

nfe wrote:
I think the ''sterner stuff' lines that is so often trotted out about previous generations is largely meaningless at best and half-remembered self-agrandising (or vicarious), romantic rubbish at worst. Plenty terrified people hid and cried their way through those wars. Plenty of them were appallingly executed for having the audacity to be scared. Plenty millennials enlist today. There hasn't been a fundamental change in the human ability to bear difficulty or confront challenge. There has been widening education that makes many question the justness of their lot, that's all.

What? Are you saying a global war was terrible? And it took a psychological toll on people? I'd have never imagined. I figured it was just a bunch of Hitlers laying in the soft flowers with X's over their eyes and free candy bars being dropped out of the sky. The sun shined all the time, Nazis were dancing with Nuns, Sailors sang sweet songs about their girlfriends back home....

Also, if people were shot for being scared, then literally everyone on the battlefield would have been shot. There were some that were shot for refusing to follow orders, of course. But hey, war's not a pleasant environment and orders in combat aren't polite requests.

Yeah, they were just awful people. They should have used Google to find a better way of life on the internet, of course.

"Widening education" is something that seems questionable, considering how many times I've heard it sputtered out along with demonstrably false, made-up nonsense by some bleating idealogue that doesn't have the qualifications to operate a broom without adult supervision.

And I don't think in any way the current generations are as tough as they were. To think as much lessens the hardships they endured. Enlisting =/= going to war. And it's damned sure not comparable to being drafted and sent to war, and I don't think there's any Millennial that has ever seen a global war. So, I hate to burst that bubble, but yes- on average, they were tougher than you. And me.

So maybe you should hustle as hard as you hate, instead of diminishing them- be inspired and try to be better.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

nfe wrote:
I think the ''sterner stuff' lines that is so often trotted out about previous generations is largely meaningless at best and half-remembered self-agrandising (or vicarious), romantic rubbish at worst. Plenty terrified people hid and cried their way through those wars. Plenty of them were appallingly executed for having the audacity to be scared. Plenty millennials enlist today. There hasn't been a fundamental change in the human ability to bear difficulty or confront challenge. There has been widening education that makes many question the justness of their lot, that's all.

What? Are you saying a global war was terrible? And it took a psychological toll on people? I'd have never imagined. I figured it was just a bunch of Hitlers laying in the soft flowers with X's over their eyes and free candy bars being dropped out of the sky. The sun shined all the time, Nazis were dancing with Nuns, Sailors sang sweet songs about their girlfriends back home....

Also, if people were shot for being scared, then literally everyone on the battlefield would have been shot. There were some that were shot for refusing to follow orders, of course. But hey, war's not a pleasant environment and orders in combat aren't polite requests.

Yeah, they were just awful people. They should have used Google to find a better way of life on the internet, of course.

"Widening education" is something that seems questionable, considering how many times I've heard it sputtered out along with demonstrably false, made-up nonsense by some bleating idealogue that doesn't have the qualifications to operate a broom without adult supervision.

And I don't think in any way the current generations are as tough as they were. To think as much lessens the hardships they endured. Enlisting =/= going to war. And it's damned sure not comparable to being drafted and sent to war, and I don't think there's any Millennial that has ever seen a global war. So, I hate to burst that bubble, but yes- on average, they were tougher than you. And me.

So maybe you should hustle as hard as you hate, instead of diminishing them- be inspired and try to be better.

Want to retry this so we can have a good faith conversation?

nfe wrote:
Want to retry this so we can have a good faith conversation?

Sure, I'll need a minute. I'm still waiting for my sides to come down from orbit, the idea that the generation that has psychological breakdowns over a cartoon frog is just as tough as the guys that charged Normandy and survived death camps is probably the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. I almost thought you were making a serious statement, and then you laid that one on me. Well played, good sir. Well played.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

nfe wrote:
Want to retry this so we can have a good faith conversation?

Sure, I'll need a minute. I'm still waiting for my sides to come down from orbit, the idea that the generation that has psychological breakdowns over a cartoon frog is just as tough as the guys that charged Normandy and survived death camps is probably the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. I almost thought you were making a serious statement, and then you laid that one on me. Well played, good sir. Well played.

That they are not is not self-evident. I'll look forward to argument and evidence more convincing than 'it's obvious, innit!'. I've gone with bookish, bleeding heart liberals to ISIS occupied areas of Iraq without security. None of us are special or brave or anything else. Quite the opposite. A whole bunch of ivory tower academics. Some millennial civilians took down a terrorist they thought to be wearing a bomb vest in London last week. Don't think any of them were especially brave characters. Just found themselves in a wild situation and got on with it. Most people just get on with what they have to get on with in a given context and that's no different now than in 1945 - we're just lucky to live in a period where few people (in the developed world) have been forced to get on with frontline military service for several decades. Saying so doesn't denigrate previous generations or exalt extant ones. People just manage.

That sometimes they are prevented from managing by circumstances was the point. My dad's parents didn't get through life on one working-class wage with three kids because they were spectacularly frugal or lived as ascetics. Still had exotic holidays and nice Christmasses. They managed because that was affordable during their working life. Nothing more nothing less. Not many places where that's possible today.

nfe wrote:
That they are not is not self-evident. I'll look forward to argument and evidence more convincing than 'it's obvious, innit!'. I've gone with bookish, bleeding heart liberals to ISIS occupied areas of Iraq without security. None of us are special or brave or anything else. Quite the opposite. A whole bunch of ivory tower academics. Most people just get on with what they have to get on with. Saying so doesn't denigrate previous generations or exalt extant ones. People just manage.

I don't care what political bend you took there. I care about the quality of person you took. And ISIS is scary, but "Global War". An entire continent embroiled in what was, at the time, full spectrum operations warfare doesn't compare. Sorry, jack. Though, I won't ask how or why you went out there. None of my concern. "Without security" could mean a bunch of things, but technically I went outside the wire in two foreign hellholes because we were the security.

I also know plenty of civilians who are ivory tower academics that aren't staring down their nose at the peasantry, they're good men and women that had a pretty easy life that their parents or grandparents busted their asses to ensure.

However, and trust me- I read the evaluations, the assessments of the force from the position of trainers... the newer generations do not compare with the older. I could pull them, but it would require me to trawl through mountains of old stuff.

But trust me, I have heard your statements before. I think the next generation needs its own global war. Maybe then they can be as badass as their grandparents.

Or we won't have to worry about them, either way.

nfe wrote:
That sometimes they are prevented from managing by circumstances was the point. My dad's parents didn't get through life on one working-class wage with three kids because they were spectacularly frugal or lived as ascetics. Still had exotic holidays and nice Christmasses. They managed because that was affordable during their working life. Nothing more nothing less. Not many places where that's possible today.

Not many people would share your grandfather's work ethic in the modern era. He was, quite literally, a man who (based on my estimation) lived through and possibly fought in a period of time where Goose-stepping Angry Windmill bois were bombing the crap out of your neck of the woods. Those are hard times. They produce hard men.

I was lucky, I had those parents that did nice things. I also got older and found out how insanely hard it was for them to pull that off, and it changed my perspective.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

nfe wrote:
That they are not is not self-evident. I'll look forward to argument and evidence more convincing than 'it's obvious, innit!'. I've gone with bookish, bleeding heart liberals to ISIS occupied areas of Iraq without security. None of us are special or brave or anything else. Quite the opposite. A whole bunch of ivory tower academics. Most people just get on with what they have to get on with. Saying so doesn't denigrate previous generations or exalt extant ones. People just manage.

I don't care what political bend you took there. I care about the quality of person you took. And ISIS is scary, but "Global War". An entire continent embroiled in what was, at the time, full spectrum operations warfare doesn't compare. Sorry, jack. Though, I won't ask how or why you went out there. None of my concern. "Without security" could mean a bunch of things, but technically I went outside the wire in two foreign hellholes because we were the security.

I'm an archaeologist. We were surveying. I've spent a fair amount of time under rocket fire for the same reason. Usually with folk who don't flinch at sirens and explosions but would run away from fighting a mouse. Because one of those things is part of their everyday life and one isn't. People get on with what they have to get on with.

I reject that people have 'quality', but that aside - the point is that scales of hardship don't really matter. People get on with what they have to get on with. I have no reason to believe that today's 18 year olds wouldn't perform exactly the same as the 1940s' 18 year olds if they were suddenly forced by the state (albeit I'm sure there'd be more conscientious objectors) . Neither do you. Hopefully we never find out.

I also know plenty of civilians who are ivory tower academics that aren't staring down their nose at the peasantry, they're good men and women that had a pretty easy life that their parents or grandparents busted their asses to ensure.

That was my point. We're all from relatively affluent backgrounds. Certainly pretty 'soft' backgrounds. But put us with sone locals who have to live in certain situations all the time and very quickly you just get on with it. It doesn't take being made of stern stuff. It just takes necessity.

However, and trust me- I read the evaluations, the assessments of the force from the position of trainers... the newer generations do not compare with the older. I could pull them, but it would require me to trawl through mountains of old stuff.

But trust me, I have heard your statements before. I think the next generation needs its own global war. Maybe then they can be as badass as their grandparents.

I mean, I obviously don't trust your judgement on this I've no reason to doubt a decline in recruits for western militaries, but I don't think you have the evidence to say that voluntary recruits in 2019 are worse than voluntary recruits 30 or 40 (or 100!) years ago are worse because their generation is softer rather than the demographics who chose to enlist changing and that coming with its own variables.

nfe wrote:
That sometimes they are prevented from managing by circumstances was the point. My dad's parents didn't get through life on one working-class wage with three kids because they were spectacularly frugal or lived as ascetics. Still had exotic holidays and nice Christmasses. They managed because that was affordable during their working life. Nothing more nothing less. Not many places where that's possible today.

Not many people would share your grandfather's work ethic in the modern era.

Literally billions of people have normal full-time working class jobs? A great many of them cannot afford to look after a family like my grandfather did. It has absolutely nothing to do with work ethic. This is the point! He could work 35 hours a week on a low paying job, own a house in his 20s, drive a car, and have a pretty high standard of living with a wife and three children. Me and my partner, with 7 degrees and academic jobs, couldn't buy his house on our income without help from parents.

He was, quite literally, a man who (based on my estimation) lived through and possibly fought in a period of time where Goose-stepping Angry Windmill bois were bombing the crap out of your neck of the woods. Those are hard times. They produce hard men.

He decommissioned tanks in the MENA after the war ended. He did live on the Clyde so a fair share of bombs. Not much more than my soft and lazy friends from Ashkelon, mind.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

nfe wrote:
Want to retry this so we can have a good faith conversation?

Sure, I'll need a minute. I'm still waiting for my sides to come down from orbit, the idea that the generation that has psychological breakdowns over a cartoon frog is just as tough as the guys that charged Normandy and survived death camps is probably the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. I almost thought you were making a serious statement, and then you laid that one on me. Well played, good sir. Well played.

What, the same generation that got triggered twenty years later because black people had the temerity to not sit at the back of the bus? The same people who decided that the darn Hippies had it coming at Kent State?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Ghool wrote:
Then try to explain those of us living humbly these days - renting a run down place, a single vehicle, no fancy phones, or giant TVs or any of the ‘stuff’ that supposedly makes us broke working two jobs, with a three income household, can barely make ends meet?
My appetite for stuff is not very big, and if I want anything I have to save and budget.
How is it that my life is so much more extravagant? Because my grandparents lived way better than my family of 4 does. They had 3 cars, a huge house and 7 kids. All on a single income.

I might be able to explain, depending on a few factors- but mostly it relates to the things I highlighted and underlined, and in which order these things occurred. And you might wanna be prepared for some brutal truth. Also, you can have a dozen incomes, it doesn't matter if they're minimum wage jobs with low hours or selling Scentsy products in a rural area.

I'll use a random made-up person, that is entirely based on several persons I've encountered in my life.

Woman complaining because her minimum wage job she's worked for 10 years doesn't feed her 3 or more children. No shortage of these examples.

First of all, if someone is pulling in minimum wage or really awful wages after 10 years or more, then they're probably not really capable of doing anything more than minimum wage jobs- in the eyes of their employers, at least- so, it's possible that one or two employers are just jerks. It's possible also that the people who've observed this person's work ethic and performance have a pretty good reason for not wasting money on them.

Well, having a kid out of wedlock while working a minimum wage job sounds like a real bad idea. However, one I can tolerate being... well, unforeseen, perhaps a fluke or something (even though I never met someone that accidentally tripped and fell on a penis and got pregnant). But after that, you can't sit and tell me you didn't think it was gonna be so hard so you pushed out more. No, that's not how kids work- the debuffs on the bank account stack.

Additionally, multiple persons living in an absolutely awful situation and having a kid, without adequate means to travel to work to produce more income? At that point, if they "we couldn't afford birth control" I get disgusted because I hear "well, we couldn't put together enough money to prevent a child from coming into the world, so we just said 'screw it, taxpayers will get it' and decided to bring a child into an absolutely miserable situation that will make him one day resent us!"

But hey, people gonna sex because that's what people do. I get it. But maybe moving in together, and not working out some kind of plan to mitigate a potential bad situation or having a fall-back plan... is not a good idea.

Granted, I also understand that "bad things can happen" and screw people who were otherwise doing okay. And that's a tough road, and can put a family in a terrible situation. To which I sympathize.

You must have a really good view up on that high horse there.
My wife, and I do not make minimum wage.
Neither of us are from affluent families, and have zero help from anyone.
Everything we have done, we have had to do ourselves without inheritance, hand me down houses or any financial help what-so-ever.
We made a conscious choice to take financial hit for a parent stay home with the kids.
But you just keep looking down your nose at anyone who has a struggle to afford what any middle class family should be able to do.
The choices we made, to live in a cheaper house and have a single vehicle is so we can afford to eventually buy our own place.
I’ll just step out of this conversation though. Have fun on that horse buddy.

 Ouze wrote:
I have been assuming I'd never get anything from Social Security ever and my retirement plans don't factor in any money from that. I have a mix of stuff going on - I have a cash benefit plan from my job, a decent 401K, and personal investments. The house is also paid off so upkeep should be pretty minimal.

Although, as this article points out, suicide is always an option if it gets tight!

Financially I've done better than my parents by a long shot, but I got lucky and happened to train in a field that would up being in demand. I don't think "doing better than your parents did" is the normal expectation in the US anymore, sadly.

Pretty much my experience... took me almost 4 years after college to get into the field I wanted to (Healthcare IT), as I knew those jobs isn't as sensitive to the ups & downs of the IT market.

While I have a bevy of benefits (similar to Ouze), I'm definitely not expecting Social Security.

However I want to make a point that worked for me. Before I found the career job, I worked multiple minimum wage jobs at the same time (3 different jobs working 50-60 hrs a week). I did that for at least 3 years so that I can get some solid footing.

Although, I read the article and seen the study referenced... I'm not so sure that the methodology zero'ed in on economic stress as a potential culprit. I just think our life expectancy going down is just another trend pointing out the availability with high caloric diet and the fact that we're a nation of couch potatoes.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

nfe wrote:
Want to retry this so we can have a good faith conversation?

Sure, I'll need a minute. I'm still waiting for my sides to come down from orbit, the idea that the generation that has psychological breakdowns over a cartoon frog is just as tough as the guys that charged Normandy and survived death camps is probably the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. I almost thought you were making a serious statement, and then you laid that one on me. Well played, good sir. Well played.

I agree with you on this one, however, the reasons might not be as clear cut as you think. Theres an interesting article on AoM outlying a theory of generational cycles, which theorises that the generations follow 4 steps which then repeat in an ongoing cycle.

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/the-generations-of-men-how-the-cycles-of-history-have-shaped-your-values-your-place-in-the-world-and-your-idea-of-manhood/

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

nfe wrote:
Want to retry this so we can have a good faith conversation?

Sure, I'll need a minute. I'm still waiting for my sides to come down from orbit, the idea that the generation that has psychological breakdowns over a cartoon frog is just as tough as the guys that charged Normandy and survived death camps is probably the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. I almost thought you were making a serious statement, and then you laid that one on me. Well played, good sir. Well played.

I agree with you on this one, however, the reasons might not be as clear cut as you think. Theres an interesting article on AoM outlying a theory of generational cycles, which theorises that the generations follow 4 steps which then repeat in an ongoing cycle.

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/the-generations-of-men-how-the-cycles-of-history-have-shaped-your-values-your-place-in-the-world-and-your-idea-of-manhood/

Ugh. This is like stuff really poor first-year students hand in to me. Professing historical credentials then cheerfully using expressions like 'the ancients'. In any case, Strauss-Howe Generational Theory, which they're drawing on, is pseudoscientific nonsense purely intended to deal with US history and widely derided by both historians and social scientists.

Fair enough. although I don't think its presenting itself as scientific, its merely presenting an observation, which is not in itself a reason to dismiss it.

Ug I want that few minutes of my life back.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

nfe wrote:
I mean the romanticised images of quaint and simple times. The nostalgia for an age that never existed kinda stuff.

Would you be calling my Grandfather a liar, or simply refusing to accept that not everyone's life was as miserable as you'd prefer it to be?

Excuse me for presuming, but from what I believe I recall about you that'd put your grandfather right around the time of the dust bowl? One of the most miserable times in American existence. But as we generally go around here, it may not have effected him personally, so clearly it doesn't matter.

And frankly, going some place to eat and talk is a dead fething normal date these days. Maybe not for 18 year olds, but it's what my single 30 something friends still do. It's just generally done somewhere passably public because people realized where all those missing persons reports of young vulnerable women were coming from.

I'm coming from a well off place in my own life, but your view on things is down right funny for someone of my age. No, it's not magically an endless cesspit of misery because we don't do things how you did. It's a bit of a gak hole because we're being used as your retirement fund while being squeezed for every cent by people with enough money to buy small countries. But most of us are making due as best we can. And for most of us, it doesn't involve kids. Those who do have them have a LOT of sacrifices they have to make. I ran the numbers last year. I sit comfortably in the upper quartile of the US in terms of house hold income, my savings would be wiped out by child care costs and related expenses by the time the kid hit college. Even if I managed to get raises at the rate I've managed so far. Or I could sacrifice half the house hold income and hope whoever keeps working never, ever loses their job because we'd be living paycheck to paycheck at best.

I do it to remind myself why I don't ask my wife about having kids. But clearly it's society that's gone mad and makes us miserable.

And in the other direction any one who takes the art of manliness seriously clearly skipped the self help exploitation of the 90s, because man looking at all that gives me some nostalgia for all that.

nfe wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

nfe wrote:
Want to retry this so we can have a good faith conversation?

Sure, I'll need a minute. I'm still waiting for my sides to come down from orbit, the idea that the generation that has psychological breakdowns over a cartoon frog is just as tough as the guys that charged Normandy and survived death camps is probably the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. I almost thought you were making a serious statement, and then you laid that one on me. Well played, good sir. Well played.

I agree with you on this one, however, the reasons might not be as clear cut as you think. Theres an interesting article on AoM outlying a theory of generational cycles, which theorises that the generations follow 4 steps which then repeat in an ongoing cycle.

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/the-generations-of-men-how-the-cycles-of-history-have-shaped-your-values-your-place-in-the-world-and-your-idea-of-manhood/

Ugh. This is like stuff really poor first-year students hand in to me. Professing historical credentials then cheerfully using expressions like 'the ancients'. In any case, Strauss-Howe Generational Theory, which they're drawing on, is pseudoscientific nonsense purely intended to deal with US history and widely derided by both historians and social scientists.

.... and it was designed for marketers to sell stuff to consumers and ad blocks to executives.....

Interesting to think a bit about and decide for yourself though. I have never seen any "Generational" related data that is compelling or meaningful.....

nfe wrote:
I think there's a lot of biscuit tin history at work here.

I assume that expression suggests I'm lying, but rest assured I have a much better grasp than you on how my grandparents lived. They indeed lived more humbly and chose to live within their means instead of taking on debt to acquire more stuff. That's hardly unique for Greatest Generation folks...that's mostly how they were.

Although my wife and I are careful with our money and quite firmly on the 'saver' side of the saver-spender spectrum...any honest self-assessment would say that we're wired differently to crave the fancy countertops and expensive cars. And to be more willing to take on debt to acquire that stuff.

And be clear that I'm only saying that hyperconsumerism is a *contributing* factor. But you can't deny that it's in the mix, right?

Consumerism was different then too. Sure you had adverts for products, but those products generally lasted a lot longer, and most had the hand skills, or at leat knew someone who had, to fix them and keep them going. Nowadays everything has planned obsolescence to keep you paying money for their updated products.

I think this idea that people used to be able to support a large family comfortably while working an entry level job their entire lives is entirely fictional. Surely your grandparents learned a trade or worked their way up wherever they worked?

But yes, people also have way more stuff now. The standard of comfort is much higher. My wife's parents grew up without indoor plumbing. I'm sure the poorest person I know with a job at least has access to a toilet. And a place to leave that is heated and air conditioned. And a smart phone and internet access and a car with air bags and lots of other things my grandparents didn't have. Life has gotten a lot, if not better, certainly more convenient. But all those conveniences cost something.

My grandparents on one side had six kids that shared two bedrooms. He knew how to fix things instead of paying a repair man or buying new ones. He built his own house. I don't know anyone today that doesn't have things much easier than he did.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Consumerism was different then too. Sure you had adverts for products, but those products generally lasted a lot longer, and most had the hand skills, or at leat knew someone who had, to fix them and keep them going. Nowadays everything has planned obsolescence to keep you paying money for their updated products.

I have a Chevy truck from 1978 that needs less major repairs than any vehicle I've had from the last 3 decades. Still running, AC works, and easier to do maintenance.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:

nfe wrote:
Want to retry this so we can have a good faith conversation?

Sure, I'll need a minute. I'm still waiting for my sides to come down from orbit, the idea that the generation that has psychological breakdowns over a cartoon frog is just as tough as the guys that charged Normandy and survived death camps is probably the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. I almost thought you were making a serious statement, and then you laid that one on me. Well played, good sir. Well played.

Want to address the psychology of the generation that didn't like black people drinking from the same water fountains? Was that too part of the good old days and their sturdier mentality? Or are you just ignoring that for the sake of your little quip about today's snowflake generation?

There's a reason why a lot of replies don't take your — anecdotal at best — data points seriously.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Consumerism was different then too. Sure you had adverts for products, but those products generally lasted a lot longer, and most had the hand skills, or at leat knew someone who had, to fix them and keep them going. Nowadays everything has planned obsolescence to keep you paying money for their updated products.

I have a Chevy truck from 1978 that needs less major repairs than any vehicle I've had from the last 3 decades. Still running, AC works, and easier to do maintenance.

That's simple survivorship bias at work. When it comes to long lasting appliances and cars then those that survived the first few years tend to not fall apart a few years later (if we ignore extreme misuse and accidents). There's been build enough junk in the past. You just don't know of it because it didn't survive long enough. People also have stuff from the 80s, 90s, or 00s that's in good working condition today. The only reason it's not older than your 78 truck is the linearity of time, not some magical manufacturing ability of the good old days. Nice build quality is not something that was exclusive to the past or that died out.

We could also just look for somebody who still drives an old-timer from the 40s or 50s (to complain about how so many cars in the 60s and 70s were not build to last) and to counter your personal anecdote. Maybe you just got one of the lucky trucks where 70s quality assurance did their job well so it survived till today unlike every other 78 truck that didn't?

Also: The good old 1925 build quality at work:

The Phoebus cartel existed to control the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs. They appropriated market territories and fixed the useful life of such bulbs. Corporations based in Europe and America founded the cartel on January 15, 1925 in Geneva. […] The Phoebus cartel created a notable landmark in the history of the global economy because it engaged in large-scale planned obsolescence to generate repeated sales and maximize profit.

Doesn't dispute the fact that modern technology has built in planned obsolescence, and are not made to be easily repairable like older products were.

I'd also be willing to bet that companies like apple and android put code into their 'updates' that slow down older devices, further prompting folks to upgrade. (I have no proof here, just a strong suspicion)

 gorgon wrote:

nfe wrote:
I think there's a lot of biscuit tin history at work here.

I assume that expression suggests I'm lying,

It refers to misremembered and romanticised perspectives of generations past. There's a tradition of biscuit tin art in the UK showing idealised, quaint images of traditional Ye Olde Britain.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I think this idea that people used to be able to support a large family comfortably while working an entry level job their entire lives is entirely fictional. Surely your grandparents learned a trade or worked their way up wherever they worked?

It isn't. Yes, tradespeople comprised a larger percentage of the workforce but there were plenty people who worked the same station in a production line or as a cleaner their whole lives.

But yes, people also have way more stuff now. The standard of comfort is much higher. My wife's parents grew up without indoor plumbing. I'm sure the poorest person I know with a job at least has access to a toilet. And a place to leave that is heated and air conditioned. And a smart phone and internet access and a car with air bags and lots of other things my grandparents didn't have. Life has gotten a lot, if not better, certainly more convenient. But all those conveniences cost something.

This is a common way of understanding relative wealth across generations, but it is fallacious. You can only compare people's relative socioeconomic position in their historical context. A family that struggles to afford to live in 2019 aren't wealthier than Henry VIII because they have a TV, central heating, and a flushing toilet.

That said, the poorest people I know (in the UK) don't have anywhere to live and I know a whole lot that can't afford to turn their heating on. They aren't fine just because they have a smartphone that they absolutely need because their benefits are tied to online forms that they need to fill in constantly and they can't afford to travel to a library to use the internet (and the closer libraries have shut down).

Okay, we can now sum up the thread.

"Corporations make things suck so nobody can live on a single low to mid income anymore."

"My grandparents did it with far less, they just didn't spend as much as we do now."

"So what? You're grandparents hated black people."


With a side dose of:

"Life expectancy sucks, we need more UBI."

"No, we need to eat better, exercise, and endeavor to make good choices."

"NO U."



Comparisons are skewed because of different prices of goods vs. cost of transportation to acquire said goods vs. income vs. cost of living/utilites per generation, but the Bell Curve is on average about the same. What are the major differences? For one, there wasn't an overabundance of luxury items at that time. Hell, some appliances that we take for granted were luxury items for older generations. I'm willing to bet that most people here live in a household with multiple vehicles, computers, game systems AND smart phones. Maybe THAT skews the data.

 Just Tony wrote:
Okay, we can now sum up the thread.

"Corporations make things suck so nobody can live on a single low to mid income anymore."

Nah. It's housing.

Comparisons are skewed because of different prices of goods vs. cost of transportation to acquire said goods vs. income vs. cost of living/utilites per generation, but the Bell Curve is on average about the same. What are the major differences? For one, there wasn't an overabundance of luxury items at that time. Hell, some appliances that we take for granted were luxury items for older generations. I'm willing to bet that most people here live in a household with multiple vehicles, computers, game systems AND smart phones. Maybe THAT skews the data.

It doesn't. That things we take for granted were once luxuries is irrelvant because they're no longer luxuries specifically because they are produceable at a cost that makes them commonplace.

Adjusted for inflation, a TV cost c.£6500 when introduced. A mobile phone was around £5500 in the early 80s.

https://www.castlecover.co.uk/historic-home-utility-prices/

We only have one car, one tv, no desktop, my personal laptop is dying, so the work laptop is the home computer, and my wife and I have one mobile phone each, both of which were bought over two years ago.
I've actually gone back to doing field work so I can actually earn the money to pay for much needed renovations around the house (most of which I'll do myself) and to replace those technological items we deem necessary.
Then we might be able to start saving up a little bit. Working in the back office just doesn't pay enough to pay the bills and provide for my family, so now I'm in Angola over the holidays while my wife and kids are in the Netherlands.
It sucks, especially because she moved to the Netherlands because I was going to work in the office and be home more, but a man does what he must.

nfe wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

nfe wrote:
I think there's a lot of biscuit tin history at work here.

I assume that expression suggests I'm lying,

It refers to misremembered and romanticised perspectives of generations past. There's a tradition of biscuit tin art in the UK showing idealised, quaint images of traditional Ye Olde Britain.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I think this idea that people used to be able to support a large family comfortably while working an entry level job their entire lives is entirely fictional. Surely your grandparents learned a trade or worked their way up wherever they worked?

It isn't. Yes, tradespeople comprised a larger percentage of the workforce but there were plenty people who worked the same station in a production line or as a cleaner their whole lives.

But yes, people also have way more stuff now. The standard of comfort is much higher. My wife's parents grew up without indoor plumbing. I'm sure the poorest person I know with a job at least has access to a toilet. And a place to leave that is heated and air conditioned. And a smart phone and internet access and a car with air bags and lots of other things my grandparents didn't have. Life has gotten a lot, if not better, certainly more convenient. But all those conveniences cost something.

This is a common way of understanding relative wealth across generations, but it is fallacious. You can only compare people's relative socioeconomic position in their historical context. A family that struggles to afford to live in 2019 aren't wealthier than Henry VIII because they have a TV, central heating, and a flushing toilet.

That said, the poorest people I know (in the UK) don't have anywhere to live and I know a whole lot that can't afford to turn their heating on. They aren't fine just because they have a smartphone that they absolutely need because their benefits are tied to online forms that they need to fill in constantly and they can't afford to travel to a library to use the internet (and the closer libraries have shut down).

You just saying "it isn't" doesn't make it so. Sorry, but you're just making things up.

And yes, an average person today has a much better life than a rich person did hundreds of years ago. It's laughable that you'd claim otherwise. It isn't fallacious at all. And if you're going to complain that your grandparents were able to get by on much less money, then you can't ignore that your grandparents also got by with much less stuff they didn't need. What did your grandparents do for a living?

He didn't claim that a poor person today doesn't have a better life than a rich person hundreds of years ago, he claimed that this doesn't make the poor person richer than the rich person hundreds of years ago because "rich" is a relative concept whereas material standard isn't. Like, he explicitly explained this and you went on to make the exact same argument again without understanding what he was saying.

Seriously, this thread might as well be renamed "people who don't understand academic concepts mock said concepts".

Nobody claimed that a poor person is rich. He's not talking about academic concepts that are hard to understand. He just isn't making sense. Because saying that poor people aren't rich is a nonsensical response to what I said.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Doesn't dispute the fact that modern technology has built in planned obsolescence, and are not made to be easily repairable like older products were.

I'd also be willing to bet that companies like apple and android put code into their 'updates' that slow down older devices, further prompting folks to upgrade. (I have no proof here, just a strong suspicion)

They've already admitted they do this, they claim it is to help protect the older phones from being overtaxed but that is pretty hard to believe.

https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-is-slowing-down-older-iphones-batteries-faq/

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Consumerism was different then too. Sure you had adverts for products, but those products generally lasted a lot longer, and most had the hand skills, or at leat knew someone who had, to fix them and keep them going. Nowadays everything has planned obsolescence to keep you paying money for their updated products.

I have a Chevy truck from 1978 that needs less major repairs than any vehicle I've had from the last 3 decades. Still running, AC works, and easier to do maintenance.

Older cars rusted out like crazy, though. Modern cars last longer overall, and people tend to trade them in too early.

Easier to maintain though...yeah, no question. In one of our cars it's hard to change the headlight bulb without taking gak apart.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Nobody claimed that a poor person is rich. He's not talking about academic concepts that are hard to understand. He just isn't making sense. Because saying that poor people aren't rich is a nonsensical response to what I said.

He is making sense, you just aren't understanding what he's saying, as evident by the last part of your post (which isn't what his argument was). You mixed up "being rich" with "having an objectively higher material standard of living". They're not synonymous.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Nobody claimed that a poor person is rich. He's not talking about academic concepts that are hard to understand. He just isn't making sense. Because saying that poor people aren't rich is a nonsensical response to what I said.

He is making sense, you just aren't understanding what he's saying, as evident by the last part of your post (which isn't what his argument was). You mixed up "being rich" with "having an objectively higher material standard of living". They're not synonymous.

I didn't mix up those things at all, though. But possibly he was actually responding to something that wasn't actually said, which made it not make much sense. So I guess it doesn't matter.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
He didn't claim that a poor person today doesn't have a better life than a rich person hundreds of years ago, he claimed that this doesn't make the poor person richer than the rich person hundreds of years ago because "rich" is a relative concept whereas material standard isn't. Like, he explicitly explained this and you went on to make the exact same argument again without understanding what he was saying.

Seriously, this thread might as well be renamed "people who don't understand academic concepts mock said concepts".

There's a reason I stopped responding...

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Nobody claimed that a poor person is rich. He's not talking about academic concepts that are hard to understand. He just isn't making sense. Because saying that poor people aren't rich is a nonsensical response to what I said.

He is making sense, you just aren't understanding what he's saying, as evident by the last part of your post (which isn't what his argument was). You mixed up "being rich" with "having an objectively higher material standard of living". They're not synonymous.

I didn't mix up those things at all, though.

Yes you did. Right here:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:


And yes, an average person today has a much better life than a rich person did hundreds of years ago. It's laughable that you'd claim otherwise.

The post you were responding to didn't make that claim, and the only way to make that interpretation is through assuming that "rich" is a measurement of objective standard rather than a relative term. You blatantly didn't understand the post you were responding to. It's right there, everyone can see it!

 Polonius wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So, any hypothesis on why the death rate among Young Adults is growing faster in the 2000's than anytime since WWII?

It's almost certainly social media, right? Young adults are engaging in less risky behavior (drugs, drinking, unprotected sex), while social media is a completely radical shift in how we interact with the world.

From what information I can find about countries with the most social media use, I'm not seeing any trend of increasing suicide rates in the years when social media use was rising. Not to say it couldn't be a factor. But something to keep in mind from an article I found:

"And while the climbing rates are cause for concern, experts point out that they don’t tell the whole story. In fact, the U.S. suicide rate is similar today to the rate of 30 years ago. Deaths by suicide fell markedly in the 1980s and 1990s before rising again at the turn of the century. What’s more, while some countries, such as Russia, have seen dramatic declines in suicide rates since the 1990s, their rates are still well above those in the United States."

Stress and misery have many ways of killing people, even if it isn't by suicide. Drugs come to mind. And the cost to one's health can make them more susceptible to all manner of other causes.

I can admit there is a lot more stuff that people nowadays seem compelled to have that my parents never needed while I was growing up - cell phone, cable, internet, security services, other entertainment subscription services, etc.

Now a person can get along fine without all of this and many people do, simply because they can't afford it. I can just see in my household I am squeezed a bit by all of these expenses that amount to hundreds of dollars a month, but I bow to the pressure and keep them for everyone.

I could 'get along' without internet/cell phone in the same way I could 'get along' by riding a bike everywhere--technically possible, but not realistic. I am expected to have an email, cell phone number, and communicate by those things both socially and formally. Obviously a job can't require me to have those, but its kind of like they can't require you to have your own car.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I could 'get along' without internet/cell phone in the same way I could 'get along' by riding a bike everywhere--technically possible, but not realistic. I am expected to have an email, cell phone number, and communicate by those things both socially and formally. Obviously a job can't require me to have those, but its kind of like they can't require you to have your own car.

Quite so.

I applied for a job a few weeks back, and they told me after offering me the job that all shifts would be communicated via a facebook group which I'd have to join. Now, it's good that I use facebook, and had I taken the job, would have been able to join their group page, but someone who didn't have facebook, or refused use it to for data protection reasons? What about a potential lack of internet before shifts being announced (a genuine issue I had in my former job, where the wifi hadn't been established by my landlord when it was supposed to be, and I had two weeks of no internet, no mobile data, and no way of knowing when my shifts for my new job were)? Can they/should they be able to require someone to set up an account on a public social media site?

Even in many universities, having a smartphone is a course requirement.

So, it's not really a case of being "compelled" to have the latest stuff, but rather that many layers of society expect it.
You're expected to have some kind of email account, a phone number, many jobs require online application, etc etc.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Consumerism was different then too. Sure you had adverts for products, but those products generally lasted a lot longer, and most had the hand skills, or at leat knew someone who had, to fix them and keep them going. Nowadays everything has planned obsolescence to keep you paying money for their updated products.

I have a Chevy truck from 1978 that needs less major repairs than any vehicle I've had from the last 3 decades. Still running, AC works, and easier to do maintenance.

Cars are one of the few things that have gotten more reliable over time as a whole. Manufacturers have gotten better at knowing how tough any given part needs to be and the swap to fuel injection means cars run at a better tune for longer which extends the life of the engine and components.

You can pull duds and gems out from any time period, but for the most part cars now are more reliable and go longer periods without maintenance than they used to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I could 'get along' without internet/cell phone in the same way I could 'get along' by riding a bike everywhere--technically possible, but not realistic. I am expected to have an email, cell phone number, and communicate by those things both socially and formally. Obviously a job can't require me to have those, but its kind of like they can't require you to have your own car.

Quite so.

I applied for a job a few weeks back, and they told me after offering me the job that all shifts would be communicated via a facebook group which I'd have to join. Now, it's good that I use facebook, and had I taken the job, would have been able to join their group page, but someone who didn't have facebook, or refused use it to for data protection reasons? What about a potential lack of internet before shifts being announced (a genuine issue I had in my former job, where the wifi hadn't been established by my landlord when it was supposed to be, and I had two weeks of no internet, no mobile data, and no way of knowing when my shifts for my new job were)? Can they/should they be able to require someone to set up an account on a public social media site?

Even in many universities, having a smartphone is a course requirement.

So, it's not really a case of being "compelled" to have the latest stuff, but rather that many layers of society expect it.
You're expected to have some kind of email account, a phone number, many jobs require online application, etc etc.

I’d be interested if someone pushed the point with that company whether they’d have to revise their system.

At my work (which is a university) they brought in a system that required you to have a smartphone, but if you pushed the point with them they’d eventually admit that they could give you a dongle instead of using a personal smartphone. You had to kick up a stink though (probably because it cost them money/time if people asked for dongles). I know a couple of people who did that because they either had a phone that was too old or had a personal policy of keeping their work technology separate from their personal technology.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MDSW wrote:
I can admit there is a lot more stuff that people nowadays seem compelled to have that my parents never needed while I was growing up - cell phone, cable, internet, security services, other entertainment subscription services, etc.

Now a person can get along fine without all of this and many people do, simply because they can't afford it. I can just see in my household I am squeezed a bit by all of these expenses that amount to hundreds of dollars a month, but I bow to the pressure and keep them for everyone.

The problem (here at least) is the price of rent and housing. It’s gotten so bad, even just in the last 10 years but definitely the last 20 or 30.

My Dad bought and paid off his house in a few years working a low skill low pay government desk job while raising 4 kids in a 1 income household. I have a job in a relatively cutting edge engineering field and if I bought a similar house I’d be paying it off for the next 25 years while living tight with no kids. Even my sisters who bought in to housing ~10 years ago are a lot better of, but house prices have gone up enough that paying it off is a lot slower as interest became a bigger chunk of repayments.

Even if you don’t buy a house, rent is bloody expensive as are essential utilities.

We could argue that maybe I have more “stuff” than my dad did at the same age (though he managed to buy cars and bikes without too much worry), but really that stuff is so cheap compared to housing that it makes almost no difference.

I think that’s where older folk are a bit disconnected from the current generation, back in the day if you worked hard and didn’t waste your money on luxury items, it’d get you somewhere in life and those folk think the current generation are suffering from not working hard enough and wasting too much money on TV/coffee/eating out. But the reality is these days, those things are so insignificant compared to housing, and a lot of kids are already working long hours in stressful jobs where they get burned out.

I’ve done the math, I can stop eating out, stop buying coffee, cancel my Netflix and it’s going to make sweet feth all difference to my ability to buy a house, and that’s on an engineer’s salary. God forbid I decide to have kids, would be completely screwed.

Albino Squirrel wrote:

nfe wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

nfe wrote:
I think there's a lot of biscuit tin history at work here.

I assume that expression suggests I'm lying,

It refers to misremembered and romanticised perspectives of generations past. There's a tradition of biscuit tin art in the UK showing idealised, quaint images of traditional Ye Olde Britain.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I think this idea that people used to be able to support a large family comfortably while working an entry level job their entire lives is entirely fictional. Surely your grandparents learned a trade or worked their way up wherever they worked?

It isn't. Yes, tradespeople comprised a larger percentage of the workforce but there were plenty people who worked the same station in a production line or as a cleaner their whole lives.

But yes, people also have way more stuff now. The standard of comfort is much higher. My wife's parents grew up without indoor plumbing. I'm sure the poorest person I know with a job at least has access to a toilet. And a place to leave that is heated and air conditioned. And a smart phone and internet access and a car with air bags and lots of other things my grandparents didn't have. Life has gotten a lot, if not better, certainly more convenient. But all those conveniences cost something.

This is a common way of understanding relative wealth across generations, but it is fallacious. You can only compare people's relative socioeconomic position in their historical context. A family that struggles to afford to live in 2019 aren't wealthier than Henry VIII because they have a TV, central heating, and a flushing toilet.

That said, the poorest people I know (in the UK) don't have anywhere to live and I know a whole lot that can't afford to turn their heating on. They aren't fine just because they have a smartphone that they absolutely need because their benefits are tied to online forms that they need to fill in constantly and they can't afford to travel to a library to use the internet (and the closer libraries have shut down).

You just saying "it isn't" doesn't make it so. Sorry, but you're just making things up.

I didn't just say it isn't. I followed it with an explanation. Many families survived on a single entry level wage two to three generations ago because the relative cost of housing was so much lower than it is today.

And yes, an average person today has a much better life than a rich person did hundreds of years ago. It's laughable that you'd claim otherwise. It isn't fallacious at all.

I didn't claim otherwise. I said exactly this. I said that Henry VIII had a lower standard of living (in terms of objective amenities at least, he was probably much happier!) than the poorest families of today (excluding those homeless with little or no access to healthcare, housing, or food). The important point is that this does not mean he was POORER than those families of today. This is because 'rich' is a relative measurement of one's access to and ability to mobilise resources in the context of their particular sociohistorical context.

And if you're going to complain that your grandparents were able to get by on much less money, then you can't ignore that your grandparents also got by with much less stuff they didn't need. What did your grandparents do for a living?

I'm not complaining that they did. I, quite obviously, think it's great that they could. It does not follow that they got by with way less stuff that they didn't need. They got by with a lot of different stuff that they didn't need. In their case, many foreign holidays, a lot of art, a huge number of books, endless ornaments that we're constantly having to take to charity shops now...

That they didn't spend their disposable income on smartphones doesn't mean that they didn't have disposable income. They had much more of it relative to equivalent families today because their cost of living was so much lower relative to my grandfather's income!

What you're saying isn't true, though. What people worked entry level jobs their entire lives and still supported families comfortably. You're fabricating that.

People spend more on housing these days, sure. But also the average house size it twice what it was when my parents bought their house. So of course the houses cost more. And, just like cars, the houses now have a lot of expensive features and amenities they didn't have back then. There are still plenty of modest homes that are more affordable. But, of course, people today have a much different impression of what success is and what kind of house they should have, so they imagine they have things much worse than they really do.

The notion that housing is more expensive is a myth. Average cost per square foot on new houses hasn't changed much at all in the last 40 years.

But I see you're from the UK, so maybe things are different there.

https://fee.org/articles/new-homes-today-have-twice-the-square-feet-per-person-as-in-1973/

My parents' house is larger than mine, and they paid less than a quarter of what mine is costing me.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
What you're saying isn't true, though. What people worked entry level jobs their entire lives and still supported families comfortably. You're fabricating that.

People spend more on housing these days, sure. But also the average house size it twice what it was when my parents bought their house. So of course the houses cost more. And, just like cars, the houses now have a lot of expensive features and amenities they didn't have back then. There are still plenty of modest homes that are more affordable. But, of course, people today have a much different impression of what success is and what kind of house they should have, so they imagine they have things much worse than they really do.

The notion that housing is more expensive is a myth. Average cost per square foot on new houses hasn't changed much at all in the last 40 years.

But I see you're from the UK, so maybe things are different there.

https://fee.org/articles/new-homes-today-have-twice-the-square-feet-per-person-as-in-1973/

People used to be able to do a blue collar job, on the factory floor or the like, and take home a wage that would support a family. Entry level is not strictly true, but medium skilled manual jobs with no supervisory responsibilities did pay well enough to live and have a family and a house.

As for home size, yes, the UK is different:

https://www.which.co.uk/news/2018/04/shrinking-homes-the-average-british-house-20-smaller-than-in-1970s/

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
What you're saying isn't true, though. What people worked entry level jobs their entire lives and still supported families comfortably. You're fabricating that.

People spend more on housing these days, sure. But also the average house size it twice what it was when my parents bought their house. So of course the houses cost more. And, just like cars, the houses now have a lot of expensive features and amenities they didn't have back then. There are still plenty of modest homes that are more affordable. But, of course, people today have a much different impression of what success is and what kind of house they should have, so they imagine they have things much worse than they really do.

The notion that housing is more expensive is a myth. Average cost per square foot on new houses hasn't changed much at all in the last 40 years.

But I see you're from the UK, so maybe things are different there.

https://fee.org/articles/new-homes-today-have-twice-the-square-feet-per-person-as-in-1973/

People used to be able to do a blue collar job, on the factory floor or the like, and take home a wage that would support a family. Entry level is not strictly true, but medium skilled manual jobs with no supervisory responsibilities did pay well enough to live and have a family and a house.

As for home size, yes, the UK is different:

https://www.which.co.uk/news/2018/04/shrinking-homes-the-average-british-house-20-smaller-than-in-1970s/

Your average UAW factory worker makes typically $17 an hour starting wages, and the average tops out above $20 an hour. That's for the type of work you're describing, which in America is earning a "livable" wage by a decent margin.

Manual labor jobs are on average providing middle class wages. I spent the year helping to manage a home improvement business, and we paid our manual labor minimum $15 an hour, some earning in excess of $20. These jobs are not overly challenging to find, you've just gotta be prepped to work. One thing I will state, as an employer, is that finding those employees is not an easy thing. We experienced a 100% turn over in staff because the labor that they would provide was sub standard. To much of my, and my co-owners time was spent going back to clean up after them. We even had employees steal from from a customer.

If I had anything to say as an employer, it was that the true challenge in the work force is finding people who are willing to earn their pay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add an adendum, this isn't an attack on the "younger generation workforce". In my primary line of duty in the military, we're constantly getting new Airmen in, and by and large, they're a great crop of people. It's been more then two years since my unit has gotten a young Airman that was a dirtbag.

Yes, as djones points out, blue collar jobs still pay pretty well and someone can still support a family working a skilled blue collar job now, requiring no college education.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised though if a lot of workers in manual blue collar jobs don't work quite as hard or as effectively (due to not being as skilled) as those from three generations ago, which might also go toward explaining why they don't make as much. And, as I mentioned earlier, people a few generations ago did a lot more work at home as well, so their money could go farther (like building their own house, for example).

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Yes, as djones points out, blue collar jobs still pay pretty well and someone can still support a family working a skilled blue collar job now, requiring no college education.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised though if a lot of workers in manual blue collar jobs don't work quite as hard or as effectively (due to not being as skilled) as those from three generations ago, which might also go toward explaining why they don't make as much. .

Source? Why on earth would you assume laborers weren't laboring as hard as they used to, or for some reason people were more efficient in the past?

https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm

This page shows a steady upward trend in worker productivity.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
What you're saying isn't true, though. What people worked entry level jobs their entire lives and still supported families comfortably. You're fabricating that.

The average 1960s house price in the UK was about £2,500. Two and a half grand. The average manual worker was taking home £960 a year. So your average house cost about 2.6x the average manual worker salary. Today the average house (£233,000) is just over 15x a week minimum wage salary (£15,264).

There was no minimum wage in the UK until 1999 so it's hard to compare lowest full time earners, but £960 in the mid-60s is about £17,500 in todays money, so it's about 15% above minimum wage adjusting for inflation. The equivalent mid 60s earnings would be about £816, giving you a average house price of 3x salary.

In the US in 1964 the average house price was $20,200 and it sits at $380,300 today. A service worker in 1964 earned £4,100. Today, that's $30,524. Giving you house prices of 4.9x and 12.4x respectively.

People don't just spend more on housing, they spend massively more. To get the equivalent salary to house ratio today you need five 2019 workers for every one mid 60s worker in the UK, and two and a half for every one in the US.

When your main outgoing is so low, yes, you can sustain a family on a single entry level wage. Heck, pretty much every industrial city in the UK was built on this. There is an entire corpus of Glaswegian literature that revolves around working class women and what they got up to whilst their husbands worked their factory jobs.

People spend more on housing these days, sure. But also the average house size it twice what it was when my parents bought their house. So of course the houses cost more. And, just like cars, the houses now have a lot of expensive features and amenities they didn't have back then. There are still plenty of modest homes that are more affordable. But, of course, people today have a much different impression of what success is and what kind of house they should have, so they imagine they have things much worse than they really do.

The notion that housing is more expensive is a myth. Average cost per square foot on new houses hasn't changed much at all in the last 40 years.

Two fallacies here. Firstly, increasing house sizes is only relevant to new builds, not to old houses and both have increased in price thousands of percent, and whether or not houses are bigger is irrelevant if you size isn't of value to you or the locations don't work - house sizes and new homes both increasing as you move away from the densest workplace concentrations, obviously.

Secondly, you are still trying to compare objective measurements of worth across generations instead of relative ones. This just isn't meaningful. It needs to be assessed in context. Again, I'm not richer than Andrew Carnegie because my flat has a power shower.

Fundamentally, whether or not you believe people lived on a single low wage, that living costs relative to average earnings are much higher really isn't in dispute.

Well, sucks to be in the UK I guess. Got any harbors nearby you could throw some tea into? That might help, seems to have worked out well for us. And whatever you do, if they send some guys to confiscate your firearms, DON'T LET THEM! You gotta stand up to those guys or it's all over.

 djones520 wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

People used to be able to do a blue collar job, on the factory floor or the like, and take home a wage that would support a family. Entry level is not strictly true, but medium skilled manual jobs with no supervisory responsibilities did pay well enough to live and have a family and a house.

Your average UAW factory worker makes typically $17 an hour starting wages, and the average tops out above $20 an hour. That's for the type of work you're describing, which in America is earning a "livable" wage by a decent margin.

So kicking off at $35,360 and making homes about 10.2x average salary. Still more than double what people buying houses in the 60s were facing. And the average rent for even a one-bed is $1,216 (41% of your $17 an hour worker's monthly income before tax and 47.8% of a service worker's) so best of luck saving that deposit.

Average in UK is £600, so half of a minimum wage, though it's heavily skewed by the cities, especially London, where rents are insanely expensive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Well, sucks to be in the UK I guess. Got any harbors nearby you could throw some tea into? That might help, seems to have worked out well for us. And whatever you do, if they send some guys to confiscate your firearms, DON'T LET THEM! You gotta stand up to those guys or it's all over.

Glad I took the time to find the numbers for that nuanced concession.