3 ms·

It's crazy how we make 10x more money for our companies than our grandparents or parents did but are unable to afford basic lives (wife, house, kids). My dad di

It's crazy how we make 10x more money for our companies than our grandparents or parents did but are unable to afford basic lives (wife, house, kids). My dad did it delivering pepsi products.

ch4s3 4y ago
You probably could too if you accepted the living standards of the 1960s and lived in a low cost of living area. I know people that happily make some version of that tradeoff, though I wouldn't personally.
- _dain_ 4y ago
  "Living standards" is such a weaselly term here. Yeah maybe you can afford a dishwasher and a car and nice clothes, but what about when you step outside your door? Being in a city with interesting things to do is an intangible good that many people like, compared to being in a smaller town with fewer amenities (nevermind well-paid jobs). It used to be affordable, now it's expensive. That's a regression no matter how you slice it. Most of the wage growth in big cities goes straight into landlords' pockets. It's no way to run a civilization. And at any rate, you can't even live the 60s life if you wanted to. It's either impossible or illegal.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    I see where you're coming from, but talking to my father-in-law who grew up in Queens in the 60s and he remembers something quite different. The city was a dangerous mess and they never went to Manhattan, they essentially never left Astoria. They didn't take vacations, have A/C, his room was basically a walk in closet with a window, they ate awful food most fo the time, and went to a low cost catholic school. He has nothing romantic or nostalgic to say about it at all. My own parents at the same time were farmers, and I certainly wouldn't want to do what they had to do as children. If you want to stuff 4 people into two bedrooms with no A/C and never take vacations you can do it today in most cities in the US for the wage you'd earn at 1 corporate job. It won't be comfortable, but that isn't new.
    - malandrew 4y ago
      Came here to say the same. The cities boomers grew up with are not the cities of 2022. Most of the interesting things that exist today in cities either didn’t exist for boomers when they were our age or was incredibly scarce and only within the reach of extremely wealthy. If you want the boomer city experience, you need to go pick a city today that compares to a NYC, LA, Miami or SF in the 1960s and 1970s. Nothing like 2022 NYC, LA, Miami or SF existed in the 1960s and 1970s.
      - ch4s3 4y ago
        Yeah, for sure. I think people REALLY underestimate how shitty food was in the 60s and 70s too. My mother-in-law told me she didn't really encounter food made with fresh vegetables until the late 80s, and my own father who grew up on a farm told me that he was so sick of mac and cheese and frozen fish sticks by late Winter(when they were running out of preserved food) that he would eat with his eyes closed.
    - steve76 4y ago
      [dead]
  - poulsbohemian 4y ago
    > Being in a city with interesting things to do is an intangible good that many people like, compared to being in a smaller town with fewer amenities (nevermind well-paid jobs). As someone who lives in a small town in the middle of nowhere, I'd argue that the well-paid jobs part is our biggest struggle. We might be somewhat unique compared to some other small towns, but we have a lot going on - theater, live music, civic groups, outdoor recreation, surprisingly good restaurants - there's plenty to do here, but there's also no question that our largest growing demographic group is people who made their money elsewhere. As both you and the poster below you comment though - neither the big city nor small towns offer much of a refuge for people these days; our system is squeezing every bit of "value" out of workers, to our detriment
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
MBAs made profit growth more important than consistent profits. Witness how dividends used to be a sign of a dependable company but now they're for suckers. Everything else broken in the economy is a consequence of this philosophy.
- kingkongjaffa 4y ago
  If you're not gaining market share from competitors in existing markets, or developing new markets from scratch, then you are not 'winning' under western hyper capitalism.
  - echelon 4y ago
    If you're not growing, your dollar is losing value and competitors are poised to be eating your lunch. Software is the best place to see this. Develop something niche and profitable. Without growth, you're just a feature and you will be ripped off by another party or a bigger player. Slack, Clubhouse, any Mac/iOS feature, etc. etc. Hundreds of examples here. There's also the broader economic theory. If you can only invest time and money in one place, then you have opportunity costs and need to weigh the future outcomes of your investment choices. Life is finite, and you should use it in the best way you know how. For most people, money correlates strongly with value creation and reward. The amount of revenue you drive is also indicative of the broader value you've materialized for other people.
throwaway6734 4y ago
It all comes back to housing costs. A generation of Americans pushed restrictive zoning policy so they could inflate the price of their biggest asset. Housing can either be a good investment or affordable, but not both.
- malandrew 4y ago
  The US population has also grown by over 50% since 1965 or so. That’s a lot more competition for land. The percent of Americans living in urban areas has also grown over time. Together we have more American competing for limited urban real estate. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percent-of-US-Population-living-in-Cities-1790-to-1970-We-include-the-percent-of_fig1_338607779 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percent-of-US-Population...
  - throwaway6734 4y ago
    It's not just urban areas where housing prices have skyrocketed but suburban as well. There's no reason du & tri plexes are illegal in so many suburban areas
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jjtheblunt 4y ago
could this result from the planet not having changed size, but the number of humans being doubled (or whatever)?
wincy 4y ago
Okay so let’s say I accept your statement is true and also I’m making good money these days with low expenses. Where should I put my money so I can be one of these people taking advantage of the fact that we’re exploiting workers? Because I’d sure like to become part of this bourgeoise class everyone keeps talking about. Do I just put money into lots of stocks?
adsfoiu1 4y ago
Afford a wife? lol? what does that even mean?
fleddr 4y ago
The answer is right there in the article: offshoring. Post-war US had close to zero economical competition for a few decades. Which is exactly the time where your grandparents and parents spent most of their adult lives in. Middle class on easy mode, a simple job supports an entire family. What changed is that the rest of the world caught up. Middle class on easy mode was a blip, not a permanent standard. What the west lost, the developing countries gained. There's of course secondary factors too: different demographics (more workers, less elderly), women were not in the work force making labor more scarce, work was more stable and not constantly technically disrupted, etc. It's complicated, but the idea that uneducated labor can support a middle class family is not coming back, ever.

It's crazy how we make 10x more money for our companies than our grandparents or parents did but are unable to afford basic lives (wife, house, kids). My dad did it delivering pepsi products.

ch4s3 4y ago

You probably could too if you accepted the living standards of the 1960s and lived in a low cost of living area. I know people that happily make some version of that tradeoff, though I wouldn't personally.

_dain_ 4y ago
"Living standards" is such a weaselly term here. Yeah maybe you can afford a dishwasher and a car and nice clothes, but what about when you step outside your door? Being in a city with interesting things to do is an intangible good that many people like, compared to being in a smaller town with fewer amenities (nevermind well-paid jobs). It used to be affordable, now it's expensive. That's a regression no matter how you slice it. Most of the wage growth in big cities goes straight into landlords' pockets. It's no way to run a civilization. And at any rate, you can't even live the 60s life if you wanted to. It's either impossible or illegal.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  I see where you're coming from, but talking to my father-in-law who grew up in Queens in the 60s and he remembers something quite different. The city was a dangerous mess and they never went to Manhattan, they essentially never left Astoria. They didn't take vacations, have A/C, his room was basically a walk in closet with a window, they ate awful food most fo the time, and went to a low cost catholic school. He has nothing romantic or nostalgic to say about it at all. My own parents at the same time were farmers, and I certainly wouldn't want to do what they had to do as children. If you want to stuff 4 people into two bedrooms with no A/C and never take vacations you can do it today in most cities in the US for the wage you'd earn at 1 corporate job. It won't be comfortable, but that isn't new.
  - malandrew 4y ago
    Came here to say the same. The cities boomers grew up with are not the cities of 2022. Most of the interesting things that exist today in cities either didn’t exist for boomers when they were our age or was incredibly scarce and only within the reach of extremely wealthy. If you want the boomer city experience, you need to go pick a city today that compares to a NYC, LA, Miami or SF in the 1960s and 1970s. Nothing like 2022 NYC, LA, Miami or SF existed in the 1960s and 1970s.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Yeah, for sure. I think people REALLY underestimate how shitty food was in the 60s and 70s too. My mother-in-law told me she didn't really encounter food made with fresh vegetables until the late 80s, and my own father who grew up on a farm told me that he was so sick of mac and cheese and frozen fish sticks by late Winter(when they were running out of preserved food) that he would eat with his eyes closed.
  - steve76 4y ago
    [dead]
- poulsbohemian 4y ago
  > Being in a city with interesting things to do is an intangible good that many people like, compared to being in a smaller town with fewer amenities (nevermind well-paid jobs). As someone who lives in a small town in the middle of nowhere, I'd argue that the well-paid jobs part is our biggest struggle. We might be somewhat unique compared to some other small towns, but we have a lot going on - theater, live music, civic groups, outdoor recreation, surprisingly good restaurants - there's plenty to do here, but there's also no question that our largest growing demographic group is people who made their money elsewhere. As both you and the poster below you comment though - neither the big city nor small towns offer much of a refuge for people these days; our system is squeezing every bit of "value" out of workers, to our detriment

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

MBAs made profit growth more important than consistent profits. Witness how dividends used to be a sign of a dependable company but now they're for suckers. Everything else broken in the economy is a consequence of this philosophy.

kingkongjaffa 4y ago
If you're not gaining market share from competitors in existing markets, or developing new markets from scratch, then you are not 'winning' under western hyper capitalism.
- echelon 4y ago
  If you're not growing, your dollar is losing value and competitors are poised to be eating your lunch. Software is the best place to see this. Develop something niche and profitable. Without growth, you're just a feature and you will be ripped off by another party or a bigger player. Slack, Clubhouse, any Mac/iOS feature, etc. etc. Hundreds of examples here. There's also the broader economic theory. If you can only invest time and money in one place, then you have opportunity costs and need to weigh the future outcomes of your investment choices. Life is finite, and you should use it in the best way you know how. For most people, money correlates strongly with value creation and reward. The amount of revenue you drive is also indicative of the broader value you've materialized for other people.

throwaway6734 4y ago

It all comes back to housing costs. A generation of Americans pushed restrictive zoning policy so they could inflate the price of their biggest asset. Housing can either be a good investment or affordable, but not both.

malandrew 4y ago
The US population has also grown by over 50% since 1965 or so. That’s a lot more competition for land. The percent of Americans living in urban areas has also grown over time. Together we have more American competing for limited urban real estate. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percent-of-US-Population-living-in-Cities-1790-to-1970-We-include-the-percent-of_fig1_338607779 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percent-of-US-Population...
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  It's not just urban areas where housing prices have skyrocketed but suburban as well. There's no reason du & tri plexes are illegal in so many suburban areas

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jjtheblunt 4y ago

could this result from the planet not having changed size, but the number of humans being doubled (or whatever)?

wincy 4y ago

Okay so let’s say I accept your statement is true and also I’m making good money these days with low expenses. Where should I put my money so I can be one of these people taking advantage of the fact that we’re exploiting workers? Because I’d sure like to become part of this bourgeoise class everyone keeps talking about. Do I just put money into lots of stocks?

adsfoiu1 4y ago

Afford a wife? lol? what does that even mean?

fleddr 4y ago

The answer is right there in the article: offshoring. Post-war US had close to zero economical competition for a few decades. Which is exactly the time where your grandparents and parents spent most of their adult lives in. Middle class on easy mode, a simple job supports an entire family. What changed is that the rest of the world caught up. Middle class on easy mode was a blip, not a permanent standard. What the west lost, the developing countries gained. There's of course secondary factors too: different demographics (more workers, less elderly), women were not in the work force making labor more scarce, work was more stable and not constantly technically disrupted, etc. It's complicated, but the idea that uneducated labor can support a middle class family is not coming back, ever.