5 ms·

I think it's a side effect of the expectation of not having a crap job. For all of human history, 99.9% of people have had crap jobs. Life gets a lot better i

by javert 11y ago

I think it's a side effect of the expectation of not having a crap job. For all of human history, 99.9% of people have had crap jobs. Life gets a lot better if you are OK with that, but young people are not OK with that today.

derekp7 11y ago
What's worse is that in more recent history, you could get by pretty good with a crap job. You wouldn't have luxury items, but you'd have most of what was needed to live a normal life. But today, if you have a crap job, you don't earn enough to cover even the basics of life. Not because the basics are more expensive (in relation to pay), but for many people there are more basics that are required than previously. For example, either you have a car that constantly needs work done on it, or you have car payments (and often times both). And add in mandatory car insurance (full coverage required if you have a loan). Without the car you can't get to work (unless you are in a major city with good transportation options). In fact, the biggest struggle that I've witnessed people (esp. single parents) having isn't food or housing, but just maintaining a reliable transportation option to get to work and run the kids back and forth to daycare.
- meatysnapper 11y ago
  The cost of 1) transportation 2) education 3) healthcare is insane, in the US. Unfortunately, I don't see any of these changing anytime soon.
  - PaulHoule 11y ago
    Also housing.
    - Animats 11y ago
      Mostly housing. In 1950, the typical rent in New York City was 10% of income.
    - Scarblac 11y ago
      Are you sure? Seen from western Europe, it always seems Americans have gigantic houses for quite reasonable prices. Outside really large cities.
      - rpearl 11y ago
        In exchange for living far away from city centers you can have a large amount of private owned living space. Then you require a car, you are somewhat isolated from socialization, and your commute generally becomes longer, and as a result of people moving out of cities the cities become less pleasant too, as they are full of cars and empty out at night as people go home. But you do get a big house, yeah.
      - PaulHoule 11y ago
        Also the choice of housing size relative to distance from the city core/transportation is made by real estate developers. Many Americans get pushed into buying bigger houses than they need and then they feel the need to buy bigger furniture and more stuff to fill it up.
- CWuestefeld 11y ago
  Even if you're consider "poor" by American standards, you do not have a problem with earning "enough to cover even the basics of life". Quoting from [1] "According to the government’s own reports, the typical American defined as poor by the Census Bureau has a car, air conditioning, and cable or satellite TV. Half of the poor have computers, 43 percent have Internet, and 40 percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV. "Far from being overcrowded, poor Americans have more living space in their home than the average non-poor person in Western Europe. Some 42 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes; on average, this is a well-maintained three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio." And that's just the poor people. In this article, we're talking about people who at least have the resources to attend college. [1] http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/16/are-there-really-40-million-poor-americans-looking-at-the-census-bureaus-definition-of-poverty/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=091815conservatives&utm_campaign=thffacebookad http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/16/are-there-really-40-millio... EDIT: remove duplicate word in first sentence.
  - derekp7 11y ago
    Oh, I agree that poor by American standards are still good compared to world wide or historical standards. The problem is that if everyone around you has a car, you really can't get by without one (due to society expectations, such as being able to get from where you live to a job that could be 30 miles away). Whereas if everyone around you didn't have transportation, then jobs, stores, and housing would be closer together. And in the past (and in poorer areas of the world), daycare is provided by family instead of having to pay half your income to cover it. Not to mention that it is more miserable to go from school or work or stores with A/C and then go home to a house without it. Whereas if you aren't exposed to A/C anywhere else in the summer, you can acclimate to the heat better.
    - CWuestefeld 11y ago
      I see what you mean: we're bidding up the cost of entry into white-collar society, and people feel pressure to keep up with it. But... 1. The fact that someone has something you don't doesn't make you worse off in an absolute sense. I have trouble making the moral leap that we need to do something that will amount to handicapping those who have earned wealth, based only on feelings of envy in the broader population. 2. In any case, it kind of proves my main point: it's not true that only 1% is successful, and the rest of us are doomed to desperate drudgery. Your explanation demonstrates that a lot of us - indeed, enough of us to set a standard of sorts - achieve success. So the point that keeps coming up in this thread about it being a winner-take-all world where any failure dooms one to purgatory is clearly false.
manachar 11y ago
You have a very poor grasp of human history. "Jobs" haven't existed for most of it. The modern job mostly didn't exist until the Industrial Revolution. Most of human history was subsistence living, which by most anthropological estimates included a lot of free time and quite a bit of control over your day-to-day life. Assuming of course you didn't starve to death or other common ways of dying. Even if you are referring to the period of human history with civilizations that began with the Neolithic revolution, "jobs" just didn't exist. You WERE a farmer, or a miller, or X. You didn't get "hired" or "fired". It wasn't always great, but is also wasn't anything really similar to the modern job.
- xlm1717 11y ago
  >Assuming of course you didn't starve to death or other common ways of dying. This is part of the reason why people were desperate to give up subsistence living. Urbanization happened over the past couple hundred years because people saw more opportunity in cities than they could ever have with subsistence living. They would not starve to death anymore, at the very least. Their "jobs", or ways to make a living to help expand the definition for you, were very crappy, and filled with existential uncertainty, as opposed to the uncertainty of being "hired" or "fired".
rpearl 11y ago
Really? "It's always sucked, accept that it has sucked and therefore will suck. Do not attempt to change the status-quo." Do you really think there isn't a better way to set things up? That nobody should try to fix this really shitty status quo? I seriously hope you're wrong because that is one of the most depressing sentiments about the state of humanity I've hard.
Animats 11y ago
Until 1980 or so, graduation from college usually ensured not having a crap job, and usually provided some job security for decades. This is no longer the case.

by javert 11y ago

derekp7 11y ago

What's worse is that in more recent history, you could get by pretty good with a crap job. You wouldn't have luxury items, but you'd have most of what was needed to live a normal life. But today, if you have a crap job, you don't earn enough to cover even the basics of life. Not because the basics are more expensive (in relation to pay), but for many people there are more basics that are required than previously. For example, either you have a car that constantly needs work done on it, or you have car payments (and often times both). And add in mandatory car insurance (full coverage required if you have a loan). Without the car you can't get to work (unless you are in a major city with good transportation options). In fact, the biggest struggle that I've witnessed people (esp. single parents) having isn't food or housing, but just maintaining a reliable transportation option to get to work and run the kids back and forth to daycare.

meatysnapper 11y ago
The cost of 1) transportation 2) education 3) healthcare is insane, in the US. Unfortunately, I don't see any of these changing anytime soon.
- PaulHoule 11y ago
  Also housing.
  - Animats 11y ago
    Mostly housing. In 1950, the typical rent in New York City was 10% of income.
  - Scarblac 11y ago
    Are you sure? Seen from western Europe, it always seems Americans have gigantic houses for quite reasonable prices. Outside really large cities.
    - rpearl 11y ago
      In exchange for living far away from city centers you can have a large amount of private owned living space. Then you require a car, you are somewhat isolated from socialization, and your commute generally becomes longer, and as a result of people moving out of cities the cities become less pleasant too, as they are full of cars and empty out at night as people go home. But you do get a big house, yeah.
    - PaulHoule 11y ago
      Also the choice of housing size relative to distance from the city core/transportation is made by real estate developers. Many Americans get pushed into buying bigger houses than they need and then they feel the need to buy bigger furniture and more stuff to fill it up.
CWuestefeld 11y ago
Even if you're consider "poor" by American standards, you do not have a problem with earning "enough to cover even the basics of life". Quoting from [1] "According to the government’s own reports, the typical American defined as poor by the Census Bureau has a car, air conditioning, and cable or satellite TV. Half of the poor have computers, 43 percent have Internet, and 40 percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV. "Far from being overcrowded, poor Americans have more living space in their home than the average non-poor person in Western Europe. Some 42 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes; on average, this is a well-maintained three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio." And that's just the poor people. In this article, we're talking about people who at least have the resources to attend college. [1] http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/16/are-there-really-40-million-poor-americans-looking-at-the-census-bureaus-definition-of-poverty/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=091815conservatives&utm_campaign=thffacebookad http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/16/are-there-really-40-millio... EDIT: remove duplicate word in first sentence.
- derekp7 11y ago
  Oh, I agree that poor by American standards are still good compared to world wide or historical standards. The problem is that if everyone around you has a car, you really can't get by without one (due to society expectations, such as being able to get from where you live to a job that could be 30 miles away). Whereas if everyone around you didn't have transportation, then jobs, stores, and housing would be closer together. And in the past (and in poorer areas of the world), daycare is provided by family instead of having to pay half your income to cover it. Not to mention that it is more miserable to go from school or work or stores with A/C and then go home to a house without it. Whereas if you aren't exposed to A/C anywhere else in the summer, you can acclimate to the heat better.
  - CWuestefeld 11y ago
    I see what you mean: we're bidding up the cost of entry into white-collar society, and people feel pressure to keep up with it. But... 1. The fact that someone has something you don't doesn't make you worse off in an absolute sense. I have trouble making the moral leap that we need to do something that will amount to handicapping those who have earned wealth, based only on feelings of envy in the broader population. 2. In any case, it kind of proves my main point: it's not true that only 1% is successful, and the rest of us are doomed to desperate drudgery. Your explanation demonstrates that a lot of us - indeed, enough of us to set a standard of sorts - achieve success. So the point that keeps coming up in this thread about it being a winner-take-all world where any failure dooms one to purgatory is clearly false.

manachar 11y ago

You have a very poor grasp of human history. "Jobs" haven't existed for most of it. The modern job mostly didn't exist until the Industrial Revolution. Most of human history was subsistence living, which by most anthropological estimates included a lot of free time and quite a bit of control over your day-to-day life. Assuming of course you didn't starve to death or other common ways of dying. Even if you are referring to the period of human history with civilizations that began with the Neolithic revolution, "jobs" just didn't exist. You WERE a farmer, or a miller, or X. You didn't get "hired" or "fired". It wasn't always great, but is also wasn't anything really similar to the modern job.

xlm1717 11y ago
>Assuming of course you didn't starve to death or other common ways of dying. This is part of the reason why people were desperate to give up subsistence living. Urbanization happened over the past couple hundred years because people saw more opportunity in cities than they could ever have with subsistence living. They would not starve to death anymore, at the very least. Their "jobs", or ways to make a living to help expand the definition for you, were very crappy, and filled with existential uncertainty, as opposed to the uncertainty of being "hired" or "fired".

rpearl 11y ago

Really? "It's always sucked, accept that it has sucked and therefore will suck. Do not attempt to change the status-quo." Do you really think there isn't a better way to set things up? That nobody should try to fix this really shitty status quo? I seriously hope you're wrong because that is one of the most depressing sentiments about the state of humanity I've hard.

Animats 11y ago

Until 1980 or so, graduation from college usually ensured not having a crap job, and usually provided some job security for decades. This is no longer the case.