Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.