• Fleur_@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    No boomers were much more likely to be plunged into a third world war. They also had something to lose, unlike me with fuck all.

  • plyth@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Zoomers all have internet. Enough of them study economics or politics. There is not another Occupy Wall Street. Do all the clever people already have well-paying jobs?

    • starlinguk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Welllll… Neither the US nor the Soviet Union had complete lunatics running the country at the time.

      • DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I think that the multiverse exist and we’re the 1% of timelines that the cold war didnt go hot.

        Imagine Stannislav Petrov tripping on a banana peel and ending up in the hospital instead of going to work and monitoring for nukes, or if Vasily Arkhipov suddenly develops caustrophobia right before that submarine mission to Cuba.

  • Carvex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Not not only their second home, but with a stay at home wife, three kids named Junior, a family dog, two cars, two weeks of vacation a year, and a retirement plan, all for 40 hours a week uneducated labor repairing vacuum cleaners.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Shit I haven’t had a vacation in 3 years since my honeymoon, and mainly because 1) money, 2) time. I make decent money doing my own thing as an electrician, but costs have spiraled so far out of control that I’m working my ass off just to keep us afloat. I’ve been contemplating hanging that up and getting a job just to get healthcare and retirement, of which I can’t afford if I want to stay competitive in my pricing.

        There is no guaranteed paid time off here in the states, it’s a “benefit” of whatever company someone works at (including federal holidays). And even then, many people are guilted into not taking their allocated time off for fear of very real reprisal (missing out on promotions, etc).

        It’s really fucked up and I don’t wanna play anymore.

      • Carvex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I get one business week, 40 hours of vacation accumulated a year at my current job.

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      19 hours ago

      two weeks of vacation a year

      2+ weeks of time off is still normal isn’t it? That’s not that much

      • faythofdragons@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        My state is one of the few that guarantees paid time off. At minimum we get 1 hour of PTO for every 40 hours worked, so that works out to about a week and a half of combined sick leave and vacation.

      • Mirshe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Yes, but most places have gone to accrued time because that way most people will use a good chunk of it before summer on various other things.

  • starlinguk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Sure, older people aren’t worried about WW3 at allllll.

    You know one of the reasons we’re on the brink of WW3? Because of devisive shit like this.

  • tisktisk@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Genuinely curious why progress toward a society of similar potential/qualities of the boomer gen is so beyond impossible please help

    • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      For one thing, the economic boom of the 1950s was an anomaly, largely driven by years of enforced saving during WWII, at least in America. Many consumer goods here were either rationed or unavailable during the war, but there was full employment for war production and those jobs paid well. So people were making good money and didn’t have a lot to spend it on. So they bought war bonds or just saved up. A few years after the war ended, when industry had shifted back to producing consumer goods, people had a lot of money to spend. Sales fueled more jobs and higher pay, fueling more sales etc. That was the 50s boom in a nutshell.

      By 1960 all the savings had been spent and consumption was slacking off. But the business world didn’t want the boom to end, so they started handing out consumer credit like candy. Consumers also didn’t want it to end, so they eagerly bought on credit. Constantly owing money became the norm, and now the average American family carries like $15,000 in credit debt, excluding mortagages.

      I think the only way we can achieve a boomer-like lifestyle for everybody will take massive changes in how we run the economy. The current system will just keep shoveling profits into the hands of a very small number of very wealthy people. Automation will keep eliminating more and more jobs - but the theoretical endpoint of that is a stat, where the economy collapses because there are too few people with incomes who can afford to buy anything. Reforming our economy before it gets to that point will be a survival issue, not a political one.

      • faythofdragons@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        16 hours ago

        There was also a large influx of money as Europe rebuilt after WWII, but that also a one-time-thing.

        Unless…

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      The rich pulled the wealth from the commoner and made themselves even richer. Now they want to be kings. It’s why we can’t have nice things.

      • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        14 hours ago

        The rich pulled the wealth from the commoner and made themselves even richer.

        That’s been happening throughout literally all of human history. It doesn’t help answer the question of why so many people had it so good in the '50s (other posters in this thread have provided better answers.)

        • Lemminary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Yes, it used to be somewhat like this, but never to this degree. Ever since money flooded US politics, a lot of millionaires have inflated their heads to believe their duty is to meddle in politics. They didn’t waste any time to push legislation in their favor through lobbying, bribery, and even running for office. It’s no coincidence massive tax cuts are being given to them, do that the burden ultimately falls on the rest of us.

          This isn’t just a money pull, but a rug pull along with it, and it’s been in the making for decades.

      • theangryseal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I’d love to see the bank account and hear the life story of the person who downvoted you.

        I really would.

      • tisktisk@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        You mean people (?) let them (boomers) permanently impede progress somehow? I’m not doubting you, just questioning the means and any specifics that can be spelled out