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.

 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.