Yeah this is way beyond voting. Even in the context of just voting, it's often necessary to vote for a lesser evil. Case in point, all the "Kamala didn't earn my vote!" dipshits who handed Trump the presidency on a silver platter.
You gotta make strategic choices with voting, and sometimes that kinda sucks.
So do that. But also break out the guillotines when the people you voted for start behaving maliciously. That's what we're failing, and that's why things have gone so far shit.
From the voting angle? Yeah I'm as tired of picking the 2nd worst candidate as anyone else. When I push for voter turnout and encourage folks to vote for the least evil option that has a realistic shot of winning, it isn't with any expectation that things will improve as a result of that person's policies, it's to pull the parachute on our freefall into human rights violations, locally and abroad.
From the guillotine angle? 'They' don't have us in jack, we just don't have a spine. We could turn this shit around practically overnight, but no one (self included - I'll own my share of the blame here) wants to get their hands dirty.
I don't. I literally acknowledged that in my previous post. I'm in the same boat as everyone else who isn't willing to risk their life or freedom over this.
There's a reason I say "we" in these types of criticisms.
Not sure what argument you think you're making. If we had a 100% turnout and still had enough people waste their vote on some protest candidate or even directly for Trump as some kind of accelerationist nonsense, the situation would still be what I'm griping about, which is people failing to vote strategically (and failing to behead malevolent people in positions of power). Nonvoters are only part of the issue.
...and not that it matters, but I don't buy that article's pitch for a second. High voter turnout trends blue. A study can hypothesize to the contrary, but a single study doesn't prove shit (in any context - peer review ftw).
Yes, and capitalism can work if it's well regulated. And that means the people have to control the government, not the corporations or billionaires. Thats what's very wrong in the USA now.
The entire fundamental goal of capitalism is to commodify any potential source of profit. That means something like a "well regulated government" which is a guaranteed negative profit engine will always be amongst the first things to be commodified.
The only way that "works" is if the government treats corporations and billionaires with a equal or greater level of contempt than they treat the government. At which point it is, by any reasonable definition, no longer capitalism.
I think this is just a larger cycle of history that has nothing specifically to do with capitalism.
In every society, there are levers of power. In ever society, access to the levels of power grants you more power. Eventually, every society is ruled by a few people who can trivially put their own interests ahead of the interests of everyone else. Eventually, doing so for long enough makes everyone (but the powerful worse off) and the society collapses, at which point the guillotines come out and society resets (best case scenario) or it enters a stable state of serfdom.
This has all happened before. This will all happen again.
that has nothing specifically to do with capitalism.
No. Capitalism is because we have learned some lessons from that long history of power struggles but we are currently stuck in a rut and have a good 50-100 years of knowing better but refusing to do anything about it, which itself is another larger cycle of history that we know better but refuse to do anything about.
Well, the idea is to use people's greed to drive growth and progress. If the government can shape profit forces to drive life quality improvements of the population, then it can work. This basically boils down to taxing bad shit, or making certain practices illegal. People will always try to game the system and find holes, and the government needs to constantly watch for this and plug the. Then competition within those rules can lead to positive outcomes.
The government doesn't need to treat corporations or billionaires with contempt, it just needs to ignore their wants and prioritize on the people.
I understand the idea, I'm saying the idea is inherently contradictory and stupid.
The government doesn't need to treat corporations or billionaires with contempt, it just needs to ignore their wants
A corporation only exists as a legal fiction. A corporation can not exist if a state "ignores their wants" because the state is the one granting the desire for the corporation to exist in the first place! Billionaires function similarly via the concept of private property but that one is a bit more roundabout.
They exist because the state intrinsically cares deeply because "billionaires" have every incentive to ensure the state does so. The state "ignoring their wants" does not come close to matching the incentives of the "billionaires" and as such the Nash equilibrium will ALWAYS favor the "billionaires" without equal, or greater, incentives for the state.
You set up a system based inherently on 'winner takes all' style conflict and are surprised when the most ruthless and least moral people end up winning?
Any system will break down when the most ruthless and least moral people take control. You could argue that a communist system is no longer a communist system when the ruthless take over, buts that's just the same as saying a well regulated capitalist system gets fucked up when the ruthless take over. I know capitalism is based on competition and that maybe makes it particularly fragile in that respect, but the competition part also makes it efficient and with the right regulations i think it can be efficient in terms of things that are good for humanity.
The entire philosophy behind capitalism is to reward those that are the most ruthlessly greedy.
That is not true of communism, socialism, anarchism, syndicalism, etc.
To use a sports metaphor; sure a 'win at any cost' approach results in fiercer competition and yes a little bit of sportsmanship would make it so less people die. But sportsmanship is diametrically opposed to a win at any cost mentality.
I think if donations to political parties were limited to a couple of hundred dollars per person and no corps or other funding allowed - or better yet, paid for only by a public fund based on the number of votes last cycle, then the system would have a chance. We'd need much more anti-corruption systems for politicians too. And this stuff would have to be constitutionally protected. The goal would be to make it so the politicians can only game for votes from the people. And Corp/capital owners could only game the system writhin the rules set by the government which is actually beholden to the people. People could innovate and take reasonable risks/work hard and be rewarded for that. Of course decent education is part of the equation too.
If you keep capitalism no amount of political donation/lobbying regulation will ever fix the problem. The problem being that having money affords you influence, even without donating directly to political parties, or by lobbying and legally bribing politicians with cushy jobs after they leave politics.
The goal would be to make it so the politicians can only game for votes from the people.
If we allow wealth to be amassed and concentrated in the hands of a few (who extracted that excess value from the workers who actually produced it), we hand control of the economy, and thus society to an unelected oligarchy.
If you control the wealth of a nation, including capital, you control the workers who are economically forced to work for you, as they lack enough money to compete with you.
When you control the capital, you decide what projects are invested in, you can influence elected bodies to bend over backwards for you with tax reductions (see, Amazon and basically getting cities to bid for them to locate parts of their business there).
And oh so much more that I am too inarticulate to make concise here.
You can't regulate your way to capitalism working, since the profit motive will always work to undo them (see the fact that Anti-Trust is barely being enforced anymore in the US, and the rest of the world generally)
A system can become disordered, acting counter to its evolved purpose, sometimes in a way that's fatal to function. I wonder if historians have a DSM for governments/societies.
My suspicion is that institutional dysfunction results not so much from the dynamics of the institution itself as from other systems evolving to more effectively exploit it.
44 here. I’m happy to have my son at home as long as he needs but I do understand the brokeness of our system because I wasn’t even able to buy a house until my late 30s and my parents were able to in their 20s. Unfortunately my parents lost their houses (divorced) in the 2008 Great Recession and died with nothing. These disgusting oligarchs need consequences for the destruction of everything American people need to survive.
This is also evident in germany where most teens live separately from 17 yrs of age and up. Anybody not doing so used to get ridiculed by their friends group. These days teens are increasingly living with their parents again in germany just due to rising costs and lower job opportunities. But hey, AI is cool!
Seriously, it was common? I knew only one person who lived by themselves at age 18 and it was someone who went to Hauptschule and became a kindergarten teacher by that age and his step dad paid for the apartment.
At 17, I was still in school for two more years and no one in my school (Gymnasium) lived alone. This was like 15-20 years ago. In my sister's year (she graduated in 2003) I also don't recall anyone living by themselves.
it seems common everywhere theres hcol. also sometimes thier siblings that did launch from home rag on thier other siblings who dint,likely dint account for potentials like AUADHD.
Yeah, I really wish it was a general Lemmy requirement that any post containing statistics be required to provide a source for them unless it's a non-serious community/post.
IPUMS Current Population Survey (CPS) Microdata, 2000–2025
Found on a realtor.com research article. Didn't check the original source but I've never known that site to provide fabricated data (and this was historical graphs and everything)
The purpose of the system was not to get you a decent job, it was to get you to take out a massive loan for the promise of probably getting a good job hopefully but it's all your fault if you can't.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend that this isn't part of what radicalized me back in the early 2000s.
However, as my world expanded through my life experiences and reading I came to understand that so much of what seems like a natural reward is artificiality propped at the expense of people in other parts of the world. That's the system. Western workers have access to a wide range of material goods with prices kept artificially low because they are produced by workers who are paid less. What manufacturing that exists is much cleaner than it used to be, because the dangerous stuff is off shore, far from our eyes. Hell, we don't even have to deal with the huge mountains of waste we produce! Temporary Migrant workers in agriculture and domestic work fill the same role except it is their labour that is exported cheaply.
I know the meme is about housing and the 'cheaply made goods' apply to that too. I live in a house built in the 1960s that is kind of the icon of cheap and cheerful working class post war period sprawl boom. Block foundation a wood frame with vinyl siding. Cheap to build, but can get expensive to maintain.
I guess all I mean to say is that I hope people who are seeing this problem are not easily swayed back into complacency if the capitalists recalibrate the feed of crumbs they give to the workers to ensure compliance. I hope for an era of world wide worker solidarity as it is the only way to tackle the problems capitalism has left us with.
I'm not going to try and convince people to have the exact same beliefs and analysis as I have because that's silly and futile. I think most people would not find this documentary to be too radical: https://www.storyofstuff.org/
Maybe give it a watch if you have the time and the comparison to depression era housing practices sounded reasonable lol. It's so easy to take for granted how much things have changed in the last 150 or so years in north america, especially post WW2.
(You can save yourself the well acksualy about Henry Ford and his approach to wages in the 1910s. They are an important piece of the puzzle but reducing the cost of consumer goods allowed western wages to stay low by retain buying power so the appearance was of increasing standard of living that was increasing dependant on the ability to exploit global workers.)
The issue is the upfront cost. Someone who is rich and can buy a pair of shoes of €150, which last 5 years, will effectively pay €2.5 a month for that.
But someone who can't cough up €150 on the spot, has to buy €30 shoes that may last 8 months. And they effectively pay €3.75 a month.
It's a small difference initially, but over the course of 5 years, the poor one will have had spent €225 (buying new ones 7.5 times in total.)
And that's not even accounting for inflation, which is not relevant for the rich person (as they only buy it once in that period), while the poor person will see costs rise. Assuming a 5% inflation rate (because that's how shit it is currently), and rounding to the nearest full mark, that will mean the poor person will have spent about €55 more on top of that.
THE DIFFERENCE OVER FIVE YEARS.
THE POOR HAS TO PAY €280.
THE RICH CAN AFFORD €150 AT ONCE.
A difference of €130, almost one full new pair of shoes. Is that justice?
The real problem becomes when you can no longer find the well made thing at any price because the brand that used to be well made decided to do a capitalism and cut costs increasing profit.
Just to fill in with a random fact: it's normally the manufacturing country that gets the blame for greenhouse gas emissions. Many rich countries managed to "go green" by shutting down manufacturing, and dumping dirty production onto poorer countries.
On the contrary; the system creates divides and imbalances that aid in consolidating power, influence, and wealth to a very small subset of individuals who spend a portion of said power, influence, and wealth to keep it that way.
I finally got into a proper career path in my 30s, and it wasn't because of my degree or my skills.
It was because I had an old friend working for that city that told them to pull my resume from the stack for a low-level position that I was way overqualified for. That got me an interview. That got me the job. I kicked ass once given an opportunity which lead to my promotion within 6 months. I quickly became known in the area and was poached by another city a little over a year after that.
Getting my resume pulled by a friend lead me to more than tripling my income within 2 years. I still don't make amazing money, but I no longer have to worry if I'll be able to pay the bills.
There is no "system" causing high housing prices. In fact, high housing prices are due to the lack of a system: It's bunch of homeowners each acting in their personal interest by impeding housing construction in order to increase the values of their own properties. That's why California introduced a system. Now all cities must build housing proportionally, or else their local zoning restrictions are nullified and builders can build whatever they want. It's working.
Construction was and is very regulated in California. Part of what California has been doing is to reduce those regulations to encourage home construction. For example, construction no longer needs to go through an environmental review process if it's being built on land that already has structures on it. There is a balance when it comes to regulation.
All those "homeowners" are backed by a system of violent oppression called capitalism. Homeowners wouldn't be able to collude and raise prices like this without the police which can enforce evictions and otherwise protect their property.
A majority of Americans continue to fall for GOP lies and take no responsibility for learning how to read and/or comprehend what they read. Americans deserve this because, on average, they are stupid cowards.
i saw alot of posts elsewhere about this, especially after the layoffs(living at home laid or graduating ripe into layoffs still at home, boomer/gen x parents whining jobs should be open left and right, and apply). plus it somewhat more common in american to force your child to leave home after 18. its mostly HCOL, and job market being plague AI screening is preventing people from finding jobs these last 3-6years.
and yes milleneals are essentially supporting boomers into thier retirements, some of which they wont get when they come of age. and genz were seeing the beggining of them being under-employed due to layoffs.
It works wonderfully well for those who designed it, they made enough propaganda, destroyed enough countries who tried to change it, and made people think that those countries didn’t worked because their system was wrong, but what destroyed them was the constant threat and war from the greatest country on earth. Democracy and capitalism cannot exist together
It sucks even more when the kid brings a "friend" and the friend's kids while you are trying to take on the kid, their kids, the spouse, and the house...good times
i saw a post (comment) on another site, the user says, the adult child brought thier wife who also doesnt work, and refuses to take care of the ailing parents.
The system only works for the few, as capitalism has always done so. As feudalism before that. The secret ingredient to both systems is systemic racism, oppression, and exploitation.
the whole 'tax sale' thing in most counties has always looked obscene. especially when buyers are mostly rich. putting unfortunate people out on the street when they just extract more money. that has to be a carry-over from UK roots.
I think the expectations were set too high because they grew up able to see the best parts of everyone else’s life at their fingertips 24/7. Maybe it’s time to look towards starting adulthood exactly like the boomers did. They ended up where they are without the internet or TikTok just fine.
Consider moving to the middle of nowhere and providing a service to the local community. Live within your means. Reconsider what you’ve been taught to expect in life. Adulthood shouldn’t be defined by what you own, like a home, car, etc.. It should be using your new liberties to take risk and earn what you want. Otherwise, you’re just submitting yourself to be someone else’s means to risk their earning potential.
You can’t just move regional and get a job. You still need means, an audience, a support network and just as importantly users for the service that pays the bills.
Years ago you could start a shop or a service. Lots of these options have been wiped out.
The system works perfectly. It's a democratic system in which the majority of people decide. And they decided they want to get screwed by billionaires. What's the problem?
Curious to know what defines "young adult", given how many people are still in college into their early-20s.
Also curious to know why multigenerational households are something we're supposed to be afraid of. This is normal practically everywhere else in the world.
Even if rents weren't skyrocketing, it's very hard to argue with "my old bedroom is rent free" when I'm at an entry level position.
I would be much more worried about the percent of young people who don't have a parent's home to move back into - because their parents are also homeless, or in care homes, or are otherwise unable/unwilling/openly hostile.
Feels a bit like I'm looking at a picture of the bullet hole airplane
My experiences don't reflect everyone's, but I was taking care of my mom and my sisters, and could not find upward momentum until moving out. I did have a sense of responsibility though, and paid 'rent' when I was not asked to. It prevented me from affording to go to college and focusing on my own needs. I was fortunate I could leave that behind, even if it took time.
Today, kids (including my sister's kids) can't do that now. Even worse, because of layoffs and poor decisions by their parents, all of them have to pool their money just so they have a house. The kids want to leave, but because all their money goes to 'rent', the only other option is the street. It's really hard, and I think assuming that "my old bedroom", well it does a lot of heavy lifting.
its quite common than you think. i think it matters of your relationship with your parents, a dysfunctional likely wont result in your situation, or some of them wont find a job, or refuse to do chores or pay the bills,(mostly due to parents poor decisions in thier children upbringing.)
It prevented me from affording to go to college and focusing on my own needs.
I mean, was the ability to live independently the problem? Or was your mom and sisters needing your attention and support what held you back?
Because... obviously, you could have just left them in the lurch and gone your own way. I made similar choices when I came out of college - staying close to home so I could easily visit and help, as my own sister prepared for school and my mom entered retirement.
Today, kids (including my sister’s kids) can’t do that now. Even worse, because of layoffs and poor decisions by their parents, all of them have to pool their money just so they have a house.
I mean, that's bad in so far as they're caught in a tight economic spot. But being able to afford a house, even with the help of multiple generations, is significantly better than being homeless or stuck in a slum, because you'd been foreclosed on. Living together and minimizing expenses seems like a good thing for everyone involved. Atomizing into single-unit apartments would be far more expensive, even if its the sort of thing the American culture tells you to do.
It’s really hard
Inflation driving prices up. Wage stagnation dragging the working class down. It absolutely fucking sucks all around.
But the statistic seems to focus on the people who have a family to stay with, while missing the people paying through the nose for a single-bedroom unit or live out of their cars or on a friend's couch.
I think you misunderstood. I'm saying it was optional in my case, and I was able to make it work somehow. In today's environment, I don't think any young adult would be able to do the same, as an option. Most are being forced into it or risk getting kicked to the street. And if I had no upward mobility due to circumstances of my own choosing, what about the ones that don't get a choice?
And keep in mind, I was talking about the bedroom being free. If we tangent towards actually contributing toward a household ('rent') then that's a whole other issue entirely. Because that isn't happening either.
In the south there are people who believe that as soon as their kids are able to work (ie: not an adult) that they should start providing for themselves. And by that I mean, "You are responsible to work, but not with money. So give it to me." It's maddening, but that's the normalization occurring here and everyone seems to be okay with that. This mindset is weaponized once the kid turns adult - "keep giving me all your money or get out."
Edit: I think another misunderstanding is the multigenerational aspect of American culture (especially in the south) in regards to this specific case. It simply does not exist. I let my mother move in with me once, and everyone I knew thought it was weird, that I was getting something out of it, or I was a fool and about to be taken advantage of. Everyone likes family, but at a distance.
In the south there are people who believe that as soon as their kids are able to work (ie: not an adult) that they should start providing for themselves. And by that I mean, “You are responsible to work, but not with money. So give it to me.” It’s maddening, but that’s the normalization occurring here and everyone seems to be okay with that. This mindset is weaponized once the kid turns adult - “keep giving me all your money or get out.”
Sure. Parents becoming landlords and neatly negating any benefit from their children accruing savings or experiencing financial responsibility. And then the end result is kids leaving the house hand-to-mouth probably sooner than would have otherwise been wise, to get an overpriced apartment in a shitty part of town just because it means "freedom" from their awful elders.
But that's bad.
Ideally, you stay at home and bank the balance of your salary and share meals with family rather than eating out and enjoy the efficiencies of shared utilities and car pooling and yadda-yadda-yadda. And then you help your parents when they're getting too old to take care of the house on their own, which guarantees the place doesn't fall apart before it's sold or inherited. And you bank more of your earnings, rather than paying it all out to a landlord. And you see more of your siblings, before you all go your separate ways. And you have a genuinely good final few years as a family that you can use to model the family you hope to build with future loved ones in your own home.
That's good.
I think another misunderstanding is the multigenerational aspect of American culture (especially in the south) in regards to this specific case.
I mean, I grew up in a Texas suburb. I went to school with lots of different people and dated around with people from a variety of economic backgrounds.
So I've seen the full spectrum. From "If you're old enough to work, you're my tenant not my child" mentality, that pushes people out way too soon and sets them back a decade or more in terms of quality of life. To "I need you to help keep the lights on, so please get a job" situations, where people stayed at home because it was way cheaper than going four figures out of pocket to pretend to be independent. To the "here's a trust fund, go buy yourself a house before you turn 30, just be back for Thanksgiving dinner", that builds strong economic foundations and deep bonds between generations, but only because you had rich parents who could afford it.
In my experience, young adults living a few extra years with their parents and building up a savings/retirement early on is generally good for them long term.
Getting a job where you're traveling all the time and living out of a suitcase in an apartment you barely recognize and going on Tinder dates (or straight up paying pros) because making money is more important than building relationships is generally awful.
And then coming out of school to a family that wants you to GTFO immediately, because you're queer or your politics are wrong or your parents are just libertarian psychos who think their kids are parasites, is the absolute worst.
The multigenerational aspect takes lots of shapes. It doesn't have to be parents exploiting their kids or kids exploiting their parents. It can be a happy time and make for a smoother transition to adulthood. I know cause I've seen it happen. And I've seen the alternatives when it doesn't happen.
Lots of kids fail to launch. They go off, they fuck up, they spend their 20s racking up huge debts just trying to pretend at independence, and then they end up right back at home again. Or worse, living out of a car or on someone else's couch or trapped in a relationship with a person they can't stand, because they couldn't get out of the parents' house fast enough.
most of the posts for "Failure to launch" is not leaving home for whatever reason(usually surrounding by a adult unwilling to work, barring mental illnesses, worst invite thier SO to live in the same house who also doesnt contribute). living in car, or a friends house is somewhat considered independant.
I'm not disputing the economics of how it is beneficial when it works. I would also advocate for the same. I was mostly targeting the "free" part, because it just doesn't happen anymore unless privilege falls into your lap. We can idolize all we want about how it should be, but reality isn't so cut and dry. Most young adults are staying at home because there are no options, not because of a desire to transition into multigenerational roots, not because they "failed to launch", and not for saving for upward momentum. These are kids and young adults who've had everything stolen from them and expected to do more than I have ever done.
And not to sound overly confrontational, but giving these talking points to a young adult is a total slap in the face. It's not that you are wrong, and it is good advice, but it's that nobody is listening and addressing the root issues. And it's only going to get worse as time goes on. It's a bit, insensitive. And I'm sure you don't intend it to be that way, but still...
Also curious to know why multigenerational households are something we’re supposed to be afraid of. This is normal practically everywhere else in the world.
Exactly my thoughts every time I read these fearmongering/shaming headlines about people living with their parents. The Anglosphere always pretends this is a global norm that everyone around the world aspires to.
it seems more common in america, than in other countries. i think the "independant" propaganda is to encourage low wage worker supply would never disappear.
What do you mean supposed to do? Doom scroll through school? Cheat through college? This is the dumbest, most useless generation of recent grads I've ever seen. It's not just me, its a studied, measurable drop in math skills, reading skills and attention. They're fucking worthless.
Oh yeah, that's fucked. Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely not saying it's their fault that they're worthless, just that they are worthless.
The mix of experimenting with tech in the classroom, social media, then add in missing two developmental years from covid, and we have ourselves a lost generation.
We already learned our lessons. California has banned phones in schools starting this school year. Many countries are banning kids under 18 or 16 from social media all together.
We learned a ton from how badly gen z turned out. But they did turn out very badly.
142 Comments
Dookieman12@piefed.social · 105 pts · 5d
That depends on who you ask. Billionaires think it works great.
pdxfed@lemmy.world · 44 pts · 5d
Working precisely as intended.
slaacaa@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 4d
lime@feddit.nu · 89 pts · 5d
the system works exactly as it's supposed to, which is why it must be destroyed.
RockBottom@feddit.org · 62 pts · 5d
STOP. ELECTING. CAPITALISTS.
Murse@slrpnk.net · 46 pts · 5d
Yeah this is way beyond voting. Even in the context of just voting, it's often necessary to vote for a lesser evil. Case in point, all the "Kamala didn't earn my vote!" dipshits who handed Trump the presidency on a silver platter.
You gotta make strategic choices with voting, and sometimes that kinda sucks.
So do that. But also break out the guillotines when the people you voted for start behaving maliciously. That's what we're failing, and that's why things have gone so far shit.
RockBottom@feddit.org · 4 pts · 4d
They have you in a check mate. Some people still don't see it.
Murse@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 4d
From the voting angle? Yeah I'm as tired of picking the 2nd worst candidate as anyone else. When I push for voter turnout and encourage folks to vote for the least evil option that has a realistic shot of winning, it isn't with any expectation that things will improve as a result of that person's policies, it's to pull the parachute on our freefall into human rights violations, locally and abroad.
From the guillotine angle? 'They' don't have us in jack, we just don't have a spine. We could turn this shit around practically overnight, but no one (self included - I'll own my share of the blame here) wants to get their hands dirty.
RockBottom@feddit.org · 0 pts · 4d
If you have a spine shows once you organize.
Murse@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 4d
I don't. I literally acknowledged that in my previous post. I'm in the same boat as everyone else who isn't willing to risk their life or freedom over this.
There's a reason I say "we" in these types of criticisms.
RockBottom@feddit.org · 2 pts · 4d
That’s normal. Change will come with food scarcity.
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -2 pts · 5d
That line has been dead for over a year, you need to find a new scapegoat.
Murse@slrpnk.net · 14 pts · 5d
Not sure what argument you think you're making. If we had a 100% turnout and still had enough people waste their vote on some protest candidate or even directly for Trump as some kind of accelerationist nonsense, the situation would still be what I'm griping about, which is people failing to vote strategically (and failing to behead malevolent people in positions of power). Nonvoters are only part of the issue.
...and not that it matters, but I don't buy that article's pitch for a second. High voter turnout trends blue. A study can hypothesize to the contrary, but a single study doesn't prove shit (in any context - peer review ftw).
weeeeum@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 5d
"Stop voting for those you have no choice but to vote for"
multifariace@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5d
Hey! There is usually an honest Christian nationalist further down the ticket you can give your vote.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 1 pts · 5d
/s is mandatory
multifariace@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 5d
Sadly it is only the tone and not the facts that are sarcastic.
Ravenheart@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 5d
I agree. But also, they're all capitalists. Even the so-called Democratic socialists are capitalists.
CannonFodder@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 5d
Yes, and capitalism can work if it's well regulated. And that means the people have to control the government, not the corporations or billionaires. Thats what's very wrong in the USA now.
SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 4d
The entire fundamental goal of capitalism is to commodify any potential source of profit. That means something like a "well regulated government" which is a guaranteed negative profit engine will always be amongst the first things to be commodified.
The only way that "works" is if the government treats corporations and billionaires with a equal or greater level of contempt than they treat the government. At which point it is, by any reasonable definition, no longer capitalism.
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 4d
I think this is just a larger cycle of history that has nothing specifically to do with capitalism.
In every society, there are levers of power. In ever society, access to the levels of power grants you more power. Eventually, every society is ruled by a few people who can trivially put their own interests ahead of the interests of everyone else. Eventually, doing so for long enough makes everyone (but the powerful worse off) and the society collapses, at which point the guillotines come out and society resets (best case scenario) or it enters a stable state of serfdom.
This has all happened before. This will all happen again.
SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
Yes.
No. Capitalism is because we have learned some lessons from that long history of power struggles but we are currently stuck in a rut and have a good 50-100 years of knowing better but refusing to do anything about it, which itself is another larger cycle of history that we know better but refuse to do anything about.
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 4d
Can you explain how capitalism is in some way consciously well-intentioned, as you seem to be implying?
CannonFodder@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 4d
Well, the idea is to use people's greed to drive growth and progress. If the government can shape profit forces to drive life quality improvements of the population, then it can work. This basically boils down to taxing bad shit, or making certain practices illegal. People will always try to game the system and find holes, and the government needs to constantly watch for this and plug the. Then competition within those rules can lead to positive outcomes.
The government doesn't need to treat corporations or billionaires with contempt, it just needs to ignore their wants and prioritize on the people.
SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 4d
I understand the idea, I'm saying the idea is inherently contradictory and stupid.
A corporation only exists as a legal fiction. A corporation can not exist if a state "ignores their wants" because the state is the one granting the desire for the corporation to exist in the first place! Billionaires function similarly via the concept of private property but that one is a bit more roundabout.
They exist because the state intrinsically cares deeply because "billionaires" have every incentive to ensure the state does so. The state "ignoring their wants" does not come close to matching the incentives of the "billionaires" and as such the Nash equilibrium will ALWAYS favor the "billionaires" without equal, or greater, incentives for the state.
You set up a system based inherently on 'winner takes all' style conflict and are surprised when the most ruthless and least moral people end up winning?
CannonFodder@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 4d
Any system will break down when the most ruthless and least moral people take control. You could argue that a communist system is no longer a communist system when the ruthless take over, buts that's just the same as saying a well regulated capitalist system gets fucked up when the ruthless take over. I know capitalism is based on competition and that maybe makes it particularly fragile in that respect, but the competition part also makes it efficient and with the right regulations i think it can be efficient in terms of things that are good for humanity.
SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
The entire philosophy behind capitalism is to reward those that are the most ruthlessly greedy.
That is not true of communism, socialism, anarchism, syndicalism, etc.
To use a sports metaphor; sure a 'win at any cost' approach results in fiercer competition and yes a little bit of sportsmanship would make it so less people die. But sportsmanship is diametrically opposed to a win at any cost mentality.
MisterFrog@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3d
FTFY.
I think we're well past the idea that capitalism is the "end of history". The profit motive is always gonna lead us back here.
CannonFodder@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 3d
I think if donations to political parties were limited to a couple of hundred dollars per person and no corps or other funding allowed - or better yet, paid for only by a public fund based on the number of votes last cycle, then the system would have a chance. We'd need much more anti-corruption systems for politicians too. And this stuff would have to be constitutionally protected. The goal would be to make it so the politicians can only game for votes from the people. And Corp/capital owners could only game the system writhin the rules set by the government which is actually beholden to the people. People could innovate and take reasonable risks/work hard and be rewarded for that. Of course decent education is part of the equation too.
MisterFrog@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
If you keep capitalism no amount of political donation/lobbying regulation will ever fix the problem. The problem being that having money affords you influence, even without donating directly to political parties, or by lobbying and legally bribing politicians with cushy jobs after they leave politics.
If we allow wealth to be amassed and concentrated in the hands of a few (who extracted that excess value from the workers who actually produced it), we hand control of the economy, and thus society to an unelected oligarchy.
If you control the wealth of a nation, including capital, you control the workers who are economically forced to work for you, as they lack enough money to compete with you.
When you control the capital, you decide what projects are invested in, you can influence elected bodies to bend over backwards for you with tax reductions (see, Amazon and basically getting cities to bid for them to locate parts of their business there).
And oh so much more that I am too inarticulate to make concise here.
You can't regulate your way to capitalism working, since the profit motive will always work to undo them (see the fact that Anti-Trust is barely being enforced anymore in the US, and the rest of the world generally)
RockBottom@feddit.org · 3 pts · 4d
Freedom of "choice".
pilferjinx@piefed.social · 1 pts · 4d
I normally view them as community-first capitalists. Still better than any kind of totalitarian (no dissent) government.
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 5d
The purpose of a system is what it does.
Hackworth@piefed.ca · 17 pts · 5d
A system can become disordered, acting counter to its evolved purpose, sometimes in a way that's fatal to function. I wonder if historians have a DSM for governments/societies.
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 5d
My suspicion is that institutional dysfunction results not so much from the dynamics of the institution itself as from other systems evolving to more effectively exploit it.
Murse@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 5d
Well that channel's a goldmine.
Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 39 pts · 5d
The system works fine. Just not for us.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 5d
it works exactly as intended
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 4d
The system does work. Perfectly. For those who installed it. Which are the top 5%.
NickwithaC@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 4d
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 4d
Exactly.
Aedaz_@lemmy.zip · 25 pts · 4d
33 here.
At least I get along with them really well
quarkquasar@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 4d
They sure make the attempt.
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
44 here. I’m happy to have my son at home as long as he needs but I do understand the brokeness of our system because I wasn’t even able to buy a house until my late 30s and my parents were able to in their 20s. Unfortunately my parents lost their houses (divorced) in the 2008 Great Recession and died with nothing. These disgusting oligarchs need consequences for the destruction of everything American people need to survive.
Sp00kyB00k@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 4d
The system does work as intended. Sadly, it was not designed for us.
kibblebits@quokk.au · 19 pts · 5d
Sure it does. It works as intended. Thinking otherwise makes a person the fool.
Bieren@lemmy.today · 18 pts · 4d
But like 7 white dudes have all the money on the planet. Things seem to be just fine.
Croquette@sh.itjust.works · 17 pts · 4d
There is a nuance to make here.
Children staying at home longer isn't a bad thing per say. Most of the world is like that.
Children staying at home because they have no choice is a big issue, because it was possible before.
UnLocoPoco@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 4d
This is also evident in germany where most teens live separately from 17 yrs of age and up. Anybody not doing so used to get ridiculed by their friends group. These days teens are increasingly living with their parents again in germany just due to rising costs and lower job opportunities. But hey, AI is cool!
volvoxvsmarla@sopuli.xyz · 9 pts · 4d
Seriously, it was common? I knew only one person who lived by themselves at age 18 and it was someone who went to Hauptschule and became a kindergarten teacher by that age and his step dad paid for the apartment.
At 17, I was still in school for two more years and no one in my school (Gymnasium) lived alone. This was like 15-20 years ago. In my sister's year (she graduated in 2003) I also don't recall anyone living by themselves.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 4d
it seems common everywhere theres hcol. also sometimes thier siblings that did launch from home rag on thier other siblings who dint,likely dint account for potentials like AUADHD.
Steve@communick.news · 13 pts · 5d
What age range is young adult here?
Do we have a link?
I think I found it. A Pew Research Study from 2020 during the height of COVID.
WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today · 16 pts · 5d
Yeah, I really wish it was a general Lemmy requirement that any post containing statistics be required to provide a source for them unless it's a non-serious community/post.
Steve@communick.news · 3 pts · 5d
Mods could police it. Would be a good rule
Diddlydee@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 5d
Steve@communick.news · 4 pts · 5d
The link I found says 18-29yo.
It's also from 2020 at the peak of COVID
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5d
How in the fuck is 30 not fully adult?
neatchee@piefed.social · 2 pts · 5d
Book publishers and economists have a very different definition of what "young adult" means
neatchee@piefed.social · 2 pts · 5d
For those curious 2025 is about 33%
Steve@communick.news · 1 pts · 5d
I tried to look, but I'm at work. Got busy.
Where did you find that?
neatchee@piefed.social · 2 pts · 5d
IPUMS Current Population Survey (CPS) Microdata, 2000–2025
Found on a realtor.com research article. Didn't check the original source but I've never known that site to provide fabricated data (and this was historical graphs and everything)
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 1 pts · 5d
and only 33% in certain areas, average closer to 20%
ceenote@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 5d
The purpose of the system was not to get you a decent job, it was to get you to take out a massive loan for the promise of probably getting a good job hopefully but it's all your fault if you can't.
Avicenna@programming.dev · 13 pts · 5d
No you see we have more billionaires than ever, which is a very good thing because shareholders.
Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online · 13 pts · 5d
I'm not going to sit here and pretend that this isn't part of what radicalized me back in the early 2000s.
However, as my world expanded through my life experiences and reading I came to understand that so much of what seems like a natural reward is artificiality propped at the expense of people in other parts of the world. That's the system. Western workers have access to a wide range of material goods with prices kept artificially low because they are produced by workers who are paid less. What manufacturing that exists is much cleaner than it used to be, because the dangerous stuff is off shore, far from our eyes. Hell, we don't even have to deal with the huge mountains of waste we produce! Temporary Migrant workers in agriculture and domestic work fill the same role except it is their labour that is exported cheaply.
I know the meme is about housing and the 'cheaply made goods' apply to that too. I live in a house built in the 1960s that is kind of the icon of cheap and cheerful working class post war period sprawl boom. Block foundation a wood frame with vinyl siding. Cheap to build, but can get expensive to maintain.
I guess all I mean to say is that I hope people who are seeing this problem are not easily swayed back into complacency if the capitalists recalibrate the feed of crumbs they give to the workers to ensure compliance. I hope for an era of world wide worker solidarity as it is the only way to tackle the problems capitalism has left us with.
I'm not going to try and convince people to have the exact same beliefs and analysis as I have because that's silly and futile. I think most people would not find this documentary to be too radical: https://www.storyofstuff.org/
Maybe give it a watch if you have the time and the comparison to depression era housing practices sounded reasonable lol. It's so easy to take for granted how much things have changed in the last 150 or so years in north america, especially post WW2.
(You can save yourself the well acksualy about Henry Ford and his approach to wages in the 1910s. They are an important piece of the puzzle but reducing the cost of consumer goods allowed western wages to stay low by retain buying power so the appearance was of increasing standard of living that was increasing dependant on the ability to exploit global workers.)
David_Eight@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 5d
Cheap goods are a trap. One actually well made thing will last you as long as ten cheaply made things, the idea that you're "saving money" is a lie.
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 5d
The issue is the upfront cost. Someone who is rich and can buy a pair of shoes of €150, which last 5 years, will effectively pay €2.5 a month for that.
But someone who can't cough up €150 on the spot, has to buy €30 shoes that may last 8 months. And they effectively pay €3.75 a month.
It's a small difference initially, but over the course of 5 years, the poor one will have had spent €225 (buying new ones 7.5 times in total.)
And that's not even accounting for inflation, which is not relevant for the rich person (as they only buy it once in that period), while the poor person will see costs rise. Assuming a 5% inflation rate (because that's how shit it is currently), and rounding to the nearest full mark, that will mean the poor person will have spent about €55 more on top of that.
THE DIFFERENCE OVER FIVE YEARS.
THE POOR HAS TO PAY €280.
THE RICH CAN AFFORD €150 AT ONCE.
A difference of €130, almost one full new pair of shoes. Is that justice?
ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 5d
The real problem becomes when you can no longer find the well made thing at any price because the brand that used to be well made decided to do a capitalism and cut costs increasing profit.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 4d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
mirshafie@europe.pub · 2 pts · 5d
Well articulated.
Just to fill in with a random fact: it's normally the manufacturing country that gets the blame for greenhouse gas emissions. Many rich countries managed to "go green" by shutting down manufacturing, and dumping dirty production onto poorer countries.
Tattorack@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 5d
On the contrary; the system creates divides and imbalances that aid in consolidating power, influence, and wealth to a very small subset of individuals who spend a portion of said power, influence, and wealth to keep it that way.
The system is working exactly as intended.
FluorideMind@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 4d
I feel like I was lied to all through school. Work hard, get good grades, and everything will work out.
Nope, unaffordable rent, suckass job market. I feel like I'm being exploited every day I'm at work, even when I like the job and the people.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 4d
I finally got into a proper career path in my 30s, and it wasn't because of my degree or my skills.
It was because I had an old friend working for that city that told them to pull my resume from the stack for a low-level position that I was way overqualified for. That got me an interview. That got me the job. I kicked ass once given an opportunity which lead to my promotion within 6 months. I quickly became known in the area and was poached by another city a little over a year after that.
Getting my resume pulled by a friend lead me to more than tripling my income within 2 years. I still don't make amazing money, but I no longer have to worry if I'll be able to pay the bills.
cabillaud@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3d
By explaining that you got to it thanks to nepotism, you just highlighted another failure of the system.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3d
Yes. That's what I'm saying.
nanometer1625@thelemmy.club · 7 pts · 5d
There is no "system" causing high housing prices. In fact, high housing prices are due to the lack of a system: It's bunch of homeowners each acting in their personal interest by impeding housing construction in order to increase the values of their own properties. That's why California introduced a system. Now all cities must build housing proportionally, or else their local zoning restrictions are nullified and builders can build whatever they want. It's working.
jama211@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 4d
The system is unregulated capitalism. Glad California is regulating.
nanometer1625@thelemmy.club · 1 pts · 2d
Construction was and is very regulated in California. Part of what California has been doing is to reduce those regulations to encourage home construction. For example, construction no longer needs to go through an environmental review process if it's being built on land that already has structures on it. There is a balance when it comes to regulation.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 4d
Nimby, corporate landlords(aka blackstone), airbnb are the major causes of the increase cost of rent and household prices.
balsoft@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 3d
All those "homeowners" are backed by a system of violent oppression called capitalism. Homeowners wouldn't be able to collude and raise prices like this without the police which can enforce evictions and otherwise protect their property.
TheMightyCat@ani.social · 7 pts · 5d
Not saying there is nothing wrong with the system, but what's wrong with living with parents?
Why must everyone move out and be alone instead of being with family and sharing the costs?
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 13 pts · 5d
If you get along with them, nothing. But for a lot of people being able to live independently from their parents is literally life saving.
lmdnw@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 5d
A majority of Americans continue to fall for GOP lies and take no responsibility for learning how to read and/or comprehend what they read. Americans deserve this because, on average, they are stupid cowards.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 4d
i saw alot of posts elsewhere about this, especially after the layoffs(living at home laid or graduating ripe into layoffs still at home, boomer/gen x parents whining jobs should be open left and right, and apply). plus it somewhat more common in american to force your child to leave home after 18. its mostly HCOL, and job market being plague AI screening is preventing people from finding jobs these last 3-6years.
and yes milleneals are essentially supporting boomers into thier retirements, some of which they wont get when they come of age. and genz were seeing the beggining of them being under-employed due to layoffs.
icecreamhunter@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 4d
It works wonderfully well for those who designed it, they made enough propaganda, destroyed enough countries who tried to change it, and made people think that those countries didn’t worked because their system was wrong, but what destroyed them was the constant threat and war from the greatest country on earth. Democracy and capitalism cannot exist together
nonentity@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 3d
A healthy, broadly educated population, which feels safe and secure, is incompatible with, and toxic to, conservative and authoritarian ideologies.
They need you to be sick, stupid, and scared.
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 4d
that system being fascist-driven kleptocracy
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 5d
Can't when your parents aren't around or don't have a place themselves. You find another way and it's usually way less comfortable.
lemonhead2@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 5d
the system does not work for you. it works perfectly fine for the politicians and billionaires.
politicians and billionaires are the only ones who can change the system so don't hold your breath waiting for it to change 🙄
newbeni@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 4d
It sucks even more when the kid brings a "friend" and the friend's kids while you are trying to take on the kid, their kids, the spouse, and the house...good times
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 4d
i saw a post (comment) on another site, the user says, the adult child brought thier wife who also doesnt work, and refuses to take care of the ailing parents.
osanna@lemmy.vg · 4 pts · 3d
Nah, it’s working EXACTLY as intended. It’s intended to make the rich richer and the poor poorer
Iusedtobeanalien@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 4d
The system works for the system
kip@piefed.zip · 3 pts · 5d
yeah things are fucked but not getting booted out when you hit eighteen is pretty normal. what does 'young adults' mean here?
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 5d
The system only works for the few, as capitalism has always done so. As feudalism before that. The secret ingredient to both systems is systemic racism, oppression, and exploitation.
Tenderizer@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 3d
Maybe you did everything you were supposed to. I didn't.
Cherry@piefed.social · 1 pts · 1d
And maybe if there was a fair system you could have picked up from a fuck up and be ok. It’s the system that’s a problem not you.
Tenderizer@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 1d
Even outside of the system I didn't. I'm just alienated from anything and everything.
cabillaud@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3d
I fucked up big time too.
Tenderizer@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 3d
I fucked up bigger time.
jerkface@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 4d
An octopus has hundreds of thousands of children, with perhaps only a few expected to reach adulthood.
Billionaires have us.
m3t00@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
the whole 'tax sale' thing in most counties has always looked obscene. especially when buyers are mostly rich. putting unfortunate people out on the street when they just extract more money. that has to be a carry-over from UK roots.
Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 4d
The system works, and it's doing exactly what it's designed to do.
That's why it needs to be dismantled and replaced with something new.
Malyca@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 3d
It works for the top and that's all we count evidently
Sirdubdee@piefed.social · 1 pts · 4d
I think the expectations were set too high because they grew up able to see the best parts of everyone else’s life at their fingertips 24/7. Maybe it’s time to look towards starting adulthood exactly like the boomers did. They ended up where they are without the internet or TikTok just fine.
Consider moving to the middle of nowhere and providing a service to the local community. Live within your means. Reconsider what you’ve been taught to expect in life. Adulthood shouldn’t be defined by what you own, like a home, car, etc.. It should be using your new liberties to take risk and earn what you want. Otherwise, you’re just submitting yourself to be someone else’s means to risk their earning potential.
Cherry@piefed.social · 1 pts · 1d
You can’t just move regional and get a job. You still need means, an audience, a support network and just as importantly users for the service that pays the bills.
Years ago you could start a shop or a service. Lots of these options have been wiped out.
Sirdubdee@piefed.social · 1 pts · 1d
Not with that attitude.
hayvan@piefed.world · 1 pts · 5d
The system works exactly as intended. This is Free Market in its full glory!
saimen@feddit.org · 1 pts · 3d
The system works perfectly. It's a democratic system in which the majority of people decide. And they decided they want to get screwed by billionaires. What's the problem?
Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 4d
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
Curious to know what defines "young adult", given how many people are still in college into their early-20s.
Also curious to know why multigenerational households are something we're supposed to be afraid of. This is normal practically everywhere else in the world.
Even if rents weren't skyrocketing, it's very hard to argue with "my old bedroom is rent free" when I'm at an entry level position.
I would be much more worried about the percent of young people who don't have a parent's home to move back into - because their parents are also homeless, or in care homes, or are otherwise unable/unwilling/openly hostile.
Feels a bit like I'm looking at a picture of the bullet hole airplane
asmoranomar@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 5d
My experiences don't reflect everyone's, but I was taking care of my mom and my sisters, and could not find upward momentum until moving out. I did have a sense of responsibility though, and paid 'rent' when I was not asked to. It prevented me from affording to go to college and focusing on my own needs. I was fortunate I could leave that behind, even if it took time.
Today, kids (including my sister's kids) can't do that now. Even worse, because of layoffs and poor decisions by their parents, all of them have to pool their money just so they have a house. The kids want to leave, but because all their money goes to 'rent', the only other option is the street. It's really hard, and I think assuming that "my old bedroom", well it does a lot of heavy lifting.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 4d
its quite common than you think. i think it matters of your relationship with your parents, a dysfunctional likely wont result in your situation, or some of them wont find a job, or refuse to do chores or pay the bills,(mostly due to parents poor decisions in thier children upbringing.)
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
I mean, was the ability to live independently the problem? Or was your mom and sisters needing your attention and support what held you back?
Because... obviously, you could have just left them in the lurch and gone your own way. I made similar choices when I came out of college - staying close to home so I could easily visit and help, as my own sister prepared for school and my mom entered retirement.
I mean, that's bad in so far as they're caught in a tight economic spot. But being able to afford a house, even with the help of multiple generations, is significantly better than being homeless or stuck in a slum, because you'd been foreclosed on. Living together and minimizing expenses seems like a good thing for everyone involved. Atomizing into single-unit apartments would be far more expensive, even if its the sort of thing the American culture tells you to do.
Inflation driving prices up. Wage stagnation dragging the working class down. It absolutely fucking sucks all around.
But the statistic seems to focus on the people who have a family to stay with, while missing the people paying through the nose for a single-bedroom unit or live out of their cars or on a friend's couch.
asmoranomar@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5d
I think you misunderstood. I'm saying it was optional in my case, and I was able to make it work somehow. In today's environment, I don't think any young adult would be able to do the same, as an option. Most are being forced into it or risk getting kicked to the street. And if I had no upward mobility due to circumstances of my own choosing, what about the ones that don't get a choice?
And keep in mind, I was talking about the bedroom being free. If we tangent towards actually contributing toward a household ('rent') then that's a whole other issue entirely. Because that isn't happening either.
In the south there are people who believe that as soon as their kids are able to work (ie: not an adult) that they should start providing for themselves. And by that I mean, "You are responsible to work, but not with money. So give it to me." It's maddening, but that's the normalization occurring here and everyone seems to be okay with that. This mindset is weaponized once the kid turns adult - "keep giving me all your money or get out."
Edit: I think another misunderstanding is the multigenerational aspect of American culture (especially in the south) in regards to this specific case. It simply does not exist. I let my mother move in with me once, and everyone I knew thought it was weird, that I was getting something out of it, or I was a fool and about to be taken advantage of. Everyone likes family, but at a distance.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 5d
Sure. Parents becoming landlords and neatly negating any benefit from their children accruing savings or experiencing financial responsibility. And then the end result is kids leaving the house hand-to-mouth probably sooner than would have otherwise been wise, to get an overpriced apartment in a shitty part of town just because it means "freedom" from their awful elders.
But that's bad.
Ideally, you stay at home and bank the balance of your salary and share meals with family rather than eating out and enjoy the efficiencies of shared utilities and car pooling and yadda-yadda-yadda. And then you help your parents when they're getting too old to take care of the house on their own, which guarantees the place doesn't fall apart before it's sold or inherited. And you bank more of your earnings, rather than paying it all out to a landlord. And you see more of your siblings, before you all go your separate ways. And you have a genuinely good final few years as a family that you can use to model the family you hope to build with future loved ones in your own home.
That's good.
I mean, I grew up in a Texas suburb. I went to school with lots of different people and dated around with people from a variety of economic backgrounds.
So I've seen the full spectrum. From "If you're old enough to work, you're my tenant not my child" mentality, that pushes people out way too soon and sets them back a decade or more in terms of quality of life. To "I need you to help keep the lights on, so please get a job" situations, where people stayed at home because it was way cheaper than going four figures out of pocket to pretend to be independent. To the "here's a trust fund, go buy yourself a house before you turn 30, just be back for Thanksgiving dinner", that builds strong economic foundations and deep bonds between generations, but only because you had rich parents who could afford it.
In my experience, young adults living a few extra years with their parents and building up a savings/retirement early on is generally good for them long term.
Getting a job where you're traveling all the time and living out of a suitcase in an apartment you barely recognize and going on Tinder dates (or straight up paying pros) because making money is more important than building relationships is generally awful.
And then coming out of school to a family that wants you to GTFO immediately, because you're queer or your politics are wrong or your parents are just libertarian psychos who think their kids are parasites, is the absolute worst.
The multigenerational aspect takes lots of shapes. It doesn't have to be parents exploiting their kids or kids exploiting their parents. It can be a happy time and make for a smoother transition to adulthood. I know cause I've seen it happen. And I've seen the alternatives when it doesn't happen.
Lots of kids fail to launch. They go off, they fuck up, they spend their 20s racking up huge debts just trying to pretend at independence, and then they end up right back at home again. Or worse, living out of a car or on someone else's couch or trapped in a relationship with a person they can't stand, because they couldn't get out of the parents' house fast enough.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 4d
most of the posts for "Failure to launch" is not leaving home for whatever reason(usually surrounding by a adult unwilling to work, barring mental illnesses, worst invite thier SO to live in the same house who also doesnt contribute). living in car, or a friends house is somewhat considered independant.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
Bleak
asmoranomar@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
I'm not disputing the economics of how it is beneficial when it works. I would also advocate for the same. I was mostly targeting the "free" part, because it just doesn't happen anymore unless privilege falls into your lap. We can idolize all we want about how it should be, but reality isn't so cut and dry. Most young adults are staying at home because there are no options, not because of a desire to transition into multigenerational roots, not because they "failed to launch", and not for saving for upward momentum. These are kids and young adults who've had everything stolen from them and expected to do more than I have ever done.
And not to sound overly confrontational, but giving these talking points to a young adult is a total slap in the face. It's not that you are wrong, and it is good advice, but it's that nobody is listening and addressing the root issues. And it's only going to get worse as time goes on. It's a bit, insensitive. And I'm sure you don't intend it to be that way, but still...
Ilandar@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 4d
Exactly my thoughts every time I read these fearmongering/shaming headlines about people living with their parents. The Anglosphere always pretends this is a global norm that everyone around the world aspires to.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 4d
it seems more common in america, than in other countries. i think the "independant" propaganda is to encourage low wage worker supply would never disappear.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 4d
i suspect early 20s, they are expected to move out by then on thier own, either in college, or living somewhere else.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 5d
Better idea:
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 5d
A €10,000,000 income still means the poor may earn only 1/1000th of that.
I think it's better to look at total net worth, and tax 100% over that, with the prohibition of raising costs onto the labourer.
Attempt to move capital or flee oneself means lifelong community service in conditions equal to your worst-treated labourer.
curiousaur@reddthat.com · -18 pts · 5d
What do you mean supposed to do? Doom scroll through school? Cheat through college? This is the dumbest, most useless generation of recent grads I've ever seen. It's not just me, its a studied, measurable drop in math skills, reading skills and attention. They're fucking worthless.
alekwithak@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 5d
"The most educated and most indebted generation" is referring to Millenials.
Also it's*
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 4d
gen z is also coming up on it too, since they graduated around the time when the layoffs are currently happening.
Joeffect@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 5d
Maybe instead of blaming them... you look at the years and years of dismantling funding for schools and the push for technology in the classroom...
curiousaur@reddthat.com · 1 pts · 4d
Oh yeah, that's fucked. Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely not saying it's their fault that they're worthless, just that they are worthless.
The mix of experimenting with tech in the classroom, social media, then add in missing two developmental years from covid, and we have ourselves a lost generation.
We already learned our lessons. California has banned phones in schools starting this school year. Many countries are banning kids under 18 or 16 from social media all together.
We learned a ton from how badly gen z turned out. But they did turn out very badly.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 4d
Projection.