4 ms·

> What saved him? > He could only look at himself and his own life, if it somewhat improved he could notice, if it somewhat got worse, he could hope things cou

by mmarq 4y ago

> What saved him? > He could only look at himself and his own life, if it somewhat improved he could notice, if it somewhat got worse, he could hope things could change for the better, as they did so many times before. Yes, but not only that. He also saw that he was better off than his parents and that throughout the years his life improved significantly, while a 30-year-old today is worse off than their parents and, rightly or not, feels that life is getting worse every year. My salary quadrupled in the last 6 years, I managed to buy a flat and I can afford to pay for my child’s education, but to achieve all of this I have to be way better than my average colleague, way luckier and to work in one of the highest paying industries. All of this to achieve what a brute working in a post office in the 80s would have taken for granted (buy a house, send your kid to school and nursery, save some money, buy a car). This leaves me in a constant state of mild anxiety (what if I stop being good at my job? What if I become sick and I can’t provide for my family? What will be of my child in such a toxic environment?) and the only social network I use is Twitter, where I only follow reputable newspapers (practically I use it as an RSS feed). I understand that my views may be influenced by living in the UK, which is a more anxiogenic society than the rest of Europe.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> while a 30-year-old today is worse off than their parents and, rightly or not, feels that life is getting worse every year. my question is: are they actually? because if we factor in what it meant to live when their parents lived, are they really worse? I'm not particularly richer monetary wise than my parents were at my age, but I earn a lot more money than they did, that I spend in a lot of things that didn't even exist back then. My parents have never been on a flight before they were 65. Also, my parents had some State benefit for being health care workers, but hey were working shifts of 5 consecutive days / 12 hours a shift, with two children at home. That's not how medical profession works anymore, shifts are 8 hours maximum in 24 hours and workers have to rest at least 12 hours before going to work again. That means a night shift every 2 days maximum. > What if I become sick and I can’t provide for my family? What will be of my child in such a toxic environment? That's the same environment your kids are living in though, I'd say that passing onto them the idea that you have to provide for your family or you literally risk to die at such young age is the most profound damage social networks have produced to younger generations. In my country that would not happen, health care is provided for everybody, especially those who can't afford it, but younger generations that grew up on social networks feels that they are in your same situation: if they don't succeed in life they'll be screwed forever. But since we leave in the post-truth neo-speak era, they also believe that there are opportunities to become rich everywhere, and the only way to *not* become rich is to get a job. Job is for losers with no talent, passion, vision and/or self respect. Of course it's not their fault, it's what the modern pied pipers (the so called influencer) are teaching them, unfiltered, there's literally no way to shield them from that crap.
- mmarq 4y ago
  > my question is: are they actually? Yes, they are. At least in the UK, an average salary is often not enough to rent an ex-council flat, a place where the poor used to reside. To afford a flat comparable to the one where I used to live as a child (that we could afford with the salary of a primary school teacher), I’d have to earn 6 times the average salary. Yes, I can take flights, which if you are a frequent flyer take 5% of your life. But for a large majority of people my age, the rest of their life is spent in an accommodation that is more expensive and objectively worse than the one their parents could afford.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > Yes, they are. At least in the UK, an average salary is often not enough to rent an ex-council flat, a place where the poor used to reside. IMO that means that people have more money, or the prices wouldn't go up in places once reserved to the poor. Also, IMO, data says that salaries are going up, not down. I think much of the effect is due minimum wages and the fact that prices of accommodation got more expensive is because market knows people are earning at least a certain amount of money. Also, houses of 2022 are very different from houses of the 50s. You wouldn't put your worst enemy to live where poor people lived no more than 50 years ago. So we spend more on housing because the life style "I work 16 hours a day and come home only to sleep" has radically changed into "I spent a lot of my time at home, even for leisure" (streaming, gaming, etc.) The new figures, revealed by the LibDems, showed that in 1950, the average full-time weekly wage was worth £7.08 (equivalent to £499 in today's money) while the basic weekly state pension was £1.36 (£91.65). Last year the average wage had climbed to £549.80, but the pension was just £87.30 > But for a large majority of people my age, the rest of their life is spent in an accommodation that is more expensive and objectively worse than the one their parents could afford. My parents bought a house paying 19% of interest rates. I'm paying less than 1%
    - mmarq 4y ago
      > IMO that means that people have more money, or the prices wouldn't go up in places once reserved to the poor. Whatever, on an average salary you can’t afford to live in a council flat that 30 years ago was meant for the poor. It means that you are poorer. > Also, IMO, data says that salaries are going up, not down. I think much of the effect is due minimum wages and the fact that prices of accommodation got more expensive is because market knows people are earning at least a certain amount of money. Data says that real salaries in the UK are still below 2007. > Also, houses of 2022 are very different from houses of the 50s. You wouldn't put your worst enemy to live where poor people lived no more than 50 years ago. Council flats haven’t been replaced by luxury apartments, they are the same shitholes they were 40 years ago, but now you can’t afford to live in there with an average salary. > So we spend more on housing because the life style "I work 16 hours a day and come home only to sleep" has radically changed into "I spent a lot of my time at home, even for leisure" (streaming, gaming, etc.) We spend more on housing because we stopped building houses and prices went up. One doesn’t spend an entire salary on rent because they like Netflix. > My parents bought a house paying 19% of interest rates. > I'm paying less than 1% I’d gladly pay 19% interest if my flat cost a third and inflation was 15%.

by mmarq 4y ago

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> while a 30-year-old today is worse off than their parents and, rightly or not, feels that life is getting worse every year. my question is: are they actually? because if we factor in what it meant to live when their parents lived, are they really worse? I'm not particularly richer monetary wise than my parents were at my age, but I earn a lot more money than they did, that I spend in a lot of things that didn't even exist back then. My parents have never been on a flight before they were 65. Also, my parents had some State benefit for being health care workers, but hey were working shifts of 5 consecutive days / 12 hours a shift, with two children at home. That's not how medical profession works anymore, shifts are 8 hours maximum in 24 hours and workers have to rest at least 12 hours before going to work again. That means a night shift every 2 days maximum. > What if I become sick and I can’t provide for my family? What will be of my child in such a toxic environment? That's the same environment your kids are living in though, I'd say that passing onto them the idea that you have to provide for your family or you literally risk to die at such young age is the most profound damage social networks have produced to younger generations. In my country that would not happen, health care is provided for everybody, especially those who can't afford it, but younger generations that grew up on social networks feels that they are in your same situation: if they don't succeed in life they'll be screwed forever. But since we leave in the post-truth neo-speak era, they also believe that there are opportunities to become rich everywhere, and the only way to *not* become rich is to get a job. Job is for losers with no talent, passion, vision and/or self respect. Of course it's not their fault, it's what the modern pied pipers (the so called influencer) are teaching them, unfiltered, there's literally no way to shield them from that crap.

mmarq 4y ago
> my question is: are they actually? Yes, they are. At least in the UK, an average salary is often not enough to rent an ex-council flat, a place where the poor used to reside. To afford a flat comparable to the one where I used to live as a child (that we could afford with the salary of a primary school teacher), I’d have to earn 6 times the average salary. Yes, I can take flights, which if you are a frequent flyer take 5% of your life. But for a large majority of people my age, the rest of their life is spent in an accommodation that is more expensive and objectively worse than the one their parents could afford.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Yes, they are. At least in the UK, an average salary is often not enough to rent an ex-council flat, a place where the poor used to reside. IMO that means that people have more money, or the prices wouldn't go up in places once reserved to the poor. Also, IMO, data says that salaries are going up, not down. I think much of the effect is due minimum wages and the fact that prices of accommodation got more expensive is because market knows people are earning at least a certain amount of money. Also, houses of 2022 are very different from houses of the 50s. You wouldn't put your worst enemy to live where poor people lived no more than 50 years ago. So we spend more on housing because the life style "I work 16 hours a day and come home only to sleep" has radically changed into "I spent a lot of my time at home, even for leisure" (streaming, gaming, etc.) The new figures, revealed by the LibDems, showed that in 1950, the average full-time weekly wage was worth £7.08 (equivalent to £499 in today's money) while the basic weekly state pension was £1.36 (£91.65). Last year the average wage had climbed to £549.80, but the pension was just £87.30 > But for a large majority of people my age, the rest of their life is spent in an accommodation that is more expensive and objectively worse than the one their parents could afford. My parents bought a house paying 19% of interest rates. I'm paying less than 1%
  - mmarq 4y ago
    > IMO that means that people have more money, or the prices wouldn't go up in places once reserved to the poor. Whatever, on an average salary you can’t afford to live in a council flat that 30 years ago was meant for the poor. It means that you are poorer. > Also, IMO, data says that salaries are going up, not down. I think much of the effect is due minimum wages and the fact that prices of accommodation got more expensive is because market knows people are earning at least a certain amount of money. Data says that real salaries in the UK are still below 2007. > Also, houses of 2022 are very different from houses of the 50s. You wouldn't put your worst enemy to live where poor people lived no more than 50 years ago. Council flats haven’t been replaced by luxury apartments, they are the same shitholes they were 40 years ago, but now you can’t afford to live in there with an average salary. > So we spend more on housing because the life style "I work 16 hours a day and come home only to sleep" has radically changed into "I spent a lot of my time at home, even for leisure" (streaming, gaming, etc.) We spend more on housing because we stopped building houses and prices went up. One doesn’t spend an entire salary on rent because they like Netflix. > My parents bought a house paying 19% of interest rates. > I'm paying less than 1% I’d gladly pay 19% interest if my flat cost a third and inflation was 15%.