3 ms·
Though I agree that it's not wrong or abnormal (at least for most of the world), in this context it represents a pretty large economic step backwards. There was
by stinkytaco 6y ago
Though I agree that it's not wrong or abnormal (at least for most of the world), in this context it represents a pretty large economic step backwards. There was a time in most middle aged people's memories where starting a career, affording a house and starting a family were all realistic goals in your twenties. Now that's not possible for many, even as economic indicators like GPD, the stock market, inflation, etc. improve. This statistic simply reflects a growing income inequality and corresponding quality of life decrease.
- paulryanrogers 6y agoI doubt think this has been true for most of history. Rather usually one lived and worked the farm with the family. Then it got subdivided as more children survived childhood, at least until the birth rate declined. There has been golden eras, usually from expansion or industrialization where youths could acquire their own places relatively young. But it doesn't scale forever.