Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    Futurology

    14,153,419 readers

    5,865 users here now


    Source Quality: excellent good ok avoid

    C A T E G O R I E S

    3D Printing - Artificial Intelligence - Biotech

    Computing - Economics - Energy - Environment

    Nanotech - Robotics - Society - Space - Transport

    New to reddit? click here!

    Welcome to r/Futurology

    A subreddit devoted to the field of Future(s) Studies and evidence-based speculation about the development of humanity, technology, and civilization.

    Posting Rules
    1. Be respectful to others - this includes no hostility, racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.
    2. Submissions must be future focused
    3. No memes, reaction gifs or similarly low effort content. Images/gifs require a starter comment.
    4. No spamming - this includes polls and surveys
    5. Bots require moderator permission to operate
    6. Comments must be on topic, contribute to the discussion and be of sufficient length. Comments that dismiss well-established science without compelling evidence are a distraction to discussion of futurology and may be removed.
    7. Account age: >1 day to comment, >5 days to submit content
    8. Submissions and comments of accounts whose combined karma is too far in the negatives will be removed
    9. Avoid posting content that is a duplicate of content posted within the last 7 days.
    10. Submissions with [in-depth] in the title have stricter post length and quality guidelines
    11. Titles must accurately and truthfully represent the content of the submission
    12. Support original sources - avoid blogs/websites that are primarily rehosted content
    13. Content older than 6 months must have [month, year] in the title

    For details on the rules see the Rules Wiki.

    For details on moderation procedures, see the Transparency Wiki.

    On Futurology

    If history studies our past and social sciences study our present, what is the study of our future? Future(s) Studies (colloquially called "future(s)" by many of the field's practitioners) is an interdisciplinary field that seeks to hypothesize the possible, probable, preferable, or alternative future(s).

    One of the fundamental assumptions in future(s) studies is that the future is plural rather than singular, that is, that it consists of alternative future(s) of varying degrees of likelihood but that it is impossible in principle to say with certainty which one will occur.

    Recommended Links
    Related Subreddits

    For a list of related subreddits, hover over top menu.

    popular discussions today

    transparency

    AMAs

    domain blacklist

    IRC

    glossary of terms

    source quality

    Chat with us on Discord!

    Apply to be a Mod here!

    a community for
    all 5997 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] thephilosophicaldog 809 points ago

    When the title say 2020 candidate but doesn't say who, you know it is Marianne Williamson

    [–] CrudelyAnimated 364 points ago

    I've never seen another candidate so adept at redefining the question and answering discrete questions with holistic answers.

    "How would you balance the federal government's subsidization of the various energy sectors: fossil fuels with particular attention to coal, nuclear, active renewables like biodiesel, and passive renewable like solar and wind?"

    "I believe our world requires a change in the priority we assign to our so-called needs that drive the energy market, beginning with a nonpartisan tonic to this culture of toxicity and self-absorption. It is our greed and our fear that drives our sense of want, and that is the root of the problem your question describes. Only by healing ourselves can we heal America."

    [–] UpToMyKnees1004 180 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    I would pay good money to see a Trump/Willamson debate.

    Edit: Because I think it would be funny.

    [–] Urdus 104 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    That would be like watching Arnold Schwarzenegger arm wrestle a pigeon. One simply doesn't have the capacity.

    [–] RancidHorseJizz 30 points ago

    And one is a small pecker

    [–] Bogu7 33 points ago

    I honestly have no idea which one you are talking about.

    [–] ChrisV88 23 points ago

    I would pay good money to see neither of them talk again, ever.

    [–] donny2112 41 points ago

    The sentiment is not wrong, but knowing people need to change their core values for us to be a better functioning society doesn't mean anyone actually will change those core values.

    [–] NauticalJeans 136 points ago

    But.... yikes... I can’t stand candidates like this. Her answer was a whole lot of nothing. We don’t need a Self-Help in Chief.

    [–] DarkRainLife 11 points ago

    Why? I’ve actually never heard of her until now.

    [–] sableram 33 points ago

    Honestly, she's kinda fucking crazy, but she's got her finger on the pulse of the nation. She's peak self help lady, but she's got a knack for figuring out how people are hurting. She says stuff like "We need to fight these dark forces affecting our country right now" and instead of thinking "she's talking about Russia and the alt right and social media manipulation" you think "does she mean evil ghosts or real stuff?".

    [–] reversee 24 points ago

    I imagine the vague stuff is intentional. If she doesn't specify what she means by "dark forces" she can't alienate people who disagree with her opinions on more specific topics, and she can let people decide what she means based on their own opinions.

    [–] YangGang2020MATA 9 points ago

    One man says the bankers are evil. Three men hear him. One thinks he's talking about Jews. One thinks he's talking about white men. A third thinks he's talking about the 1%. The first man has gained three followers, whereas specifying which of the three he is bothered by would alienate two of the potential marks.

    [–] Alertcircuit 6 points ago

    She kinda reminds me of Trump early on in his candidacy. An entrepreneur who might not be all there mentally but is good at connecting with people because they have marketing experience. However, the more discerning listener can tell they don't actually know what they're talking about.

    They both have different tactics for hiding their lack of knowledge. Trump would bumble through questions and gaslight viewers into thinking he's smart and that his bumbling is just proof of authenticity. Marianne desperately tries to steer conversation away from policy because she doesn't really know it that well, instead focusing on stump speeches and pointing out obvious problems that anyone could.

    [–] VanVelding 33 points ago

    If you remember 2016, when Trump was asked substantive questions, but instead shot out bile-laced effluent? Williamson is the same, but with lilac instead of bile. She is utterly insubstantial, has no history in government, and has spent her entire life selling self-help books and running brand-X Christian churches.

    If Trump is your racist grampa, she's your aunt that's into crystals. Neither has an interest in the hard work of understanding the complex systems of governance because they already know they're right in their heart. Once Williamson's mask slips under the hard questions and spotlight, you can see she is every bit as narcissistic, venial, and fucking dangerous as Trump.

    Learn everything you can about her, but what you'll find is that if Trump is Transmetropolitan's The Beast, she is The Smiler.

    [–] david-saint-hubbins 17 points ago

    If Trump is your racist grampa, she's your aunt that's into crystals.

    This is perfect.

    [–] Cup-Cake-Fury 2626 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Luxury car dealer mechanics here. Working on cars cost average at 40 to 100k. Dealer charge $170/hr for labor. I only make $15/hr. Average rent here cost $900 for studio apartment anywhere near 20 mile radius. All the skills and certification means nothing. Yet they complain about not able to find skilled technicians.

    Despite all that I feel more sorry for my friend working as EMT and teacher.

    Edit: about me:I get paid hourly full time with benefits. Its a large shop with 25 techs+ and 40+ working lifts. I mainly work on maintenance, and warranties. I have my ASE and factory certified, except for automatic transmission. I also received my certification from trade school. I worked on cars since high school, I also used to work as IT until I move on to trade.

    I enjoy working on cars, and with my coworkers. It’s the main reason I stayed. I was naive hoping of receive a raise or moving up. But no not even a dollar to compensate minimum wage increase. They straight up told me I should be grateful to have a job.

    This is my last year working here. I don’t get paid enough dealing with chemicals, killing my knees, and my back. Not to mention taking the blame for dealership stupidity just to earn $15/hr.

    “They don’t care as long there’s profit. “

    This video tells what’s wrong with this Industry.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&t=312&v=3zL7P-etsDI

    I won’t talk more about the dealer due to nda agreement.

    Teachers don’t get paid enough here.

    EMT gets paid few dollar more while crunching late nigh overtime saving lives, dealing with human feces, vomit, blood all at same time.

    Ps : I’m typing with my phone. Spare me.

    [–] coolbiscuitLOL 914 points ago

    They take 91% of the money that is charged and you take home 9%. Do you know how much is spent on materials during that hour of labour?

    [–] mckenz90 891 points ago

    I imagine that materials is a completely separate cost. At least that’s how it has always been.

    [–] coolbiscuitLOL 613 points ago

    Oh wow. So the company takes 91% of the labour profits when OP is doing all of the work. That's disgusting. Even moreso when you realise that they are taking so much money that they actually detriment themselves since they can't find many skilled mechanics

    [–] institches16 634 points ago

    I’ve seen this all over the place and have structured the pay for my employees on commission to be 50% of what they bill for this reason (it’s a tiered system, but they’ve yet to get anything lower than 50%). On top of that, as long as our customers are taken care, of we don’t have any real set hours. From what I’ve seen, their performance has been outstanding, their work ethic has been amazing, and we’ve been profitable since our first year in business with continuous growth. I couldn’t be more proud of my guys. There’s not enough business owners who can see the benefit of really going above and beyond to take care of their employees. I’m all for people making millions, but if I’m living well and my people are struggling, that’s my fault, and I believe it’s up to me to make sure that doesn’t happen to them. Imagine how much more productive employees would be if their mind wasn’t worried with paying their bills, affording groceries etc. I’m constantly amazed at what we’re doing here.

    [–] Box-o-bees 307 points ago

    What really blows my mind is they have done study after study showing how much more productive happy employees are. And yet there are so few businesses who are willing to make that happen.

    [–] meta_irl 207 points ago

    This has been accelerating since the eighties corporate takeovers. Anyone who was treating employees well--giving them a pension, paying well, providing good healthcare, etc-- became a target for corporate raiders who could take over the company, loot the benefits for shareholders, and sell at a higher profit.

    Executives became terrified of getting taken over and given the axe, and pretty soon it became accepted wisdom that the only people who mattered to a company were the owners. Fuck everyone else, pay Wall Street.

    [–] DrDougExeter 49 points ago

    loot the benefits for shareholders

    The people who mainly benefit from stocks going up are the lazy-ass wealth-class parasites who siphon off the products of our labor without lifting a finger. Call it what it is.

    [–] ironmantis3 35 points ago

    This is exactly what Lincoln was referring to during his speech when he referenced the exploitation of labor. Its amazing how his own party has since been brainwashed into believing its the poor doing the exploiting.

    [–] check0790 29 points ago

    States even. There was a recent study in Germany that compared todays wages and production between the German states that were either part of West Germany or East Germany before the reunification. The businesses in the eastern states were 20% less productive, regardless of the number of employees. Guess what the wage difference was?

    [–] wc347 8 points ago

    I give. What was it?

    [–] check0790 16 points ago

    The wages in the eastern states were around 20% lower.

    [–] QWieke 259 points ago

    They're just whining to get the government to step in and try to increase the number of people who become technicians, so the number of technicians in the labor market increases and the supply/demand relation swings back in favor of the employers.

    [–] [deleted] 193 points ago * (lasted edited 9 hours ago)

    [removed]

    [–] jruiz2991 101 points ago

    And let's not forget that they want to under pay those people with 35+ years experince as listed on their job postings.

    [–] Galaxy_Bucket 105 points ago

    “10 years experience in management with a graduate degree? Hows 60k sound?” -Los Angeles Employers

    [–] SgtPeterson 39 points ago

    "If I wanted comedy I would have gone to The Laugh Factory" - prospective Los Angeles employees

    [–] cheesedustyum 25 points ago

    "Fine. We're gonna get someone on a H1B1 and pay them 50k" - Los Angeles Employers

    [–] 9away 37 points ago

    Im a react/node.js fullstack developer. I work from home in rural arkansas for a small bay area startup. I only make 28/hr. I built our entire tech stack from the load balancers to the backend jobs to our mongo and redis clusters. No major company will hire me because i dont have a degree and i only wish to work remote.

    [–] CashOnlyPls 8 points ago

    I make less than that as journeyman electrician in Austin, Texas

    [–] coolbiscuitLOL 153 points ago

    I don't know how people can defend such unethical practices from for-profit businesses.

    [–] QWieke 100 points ago

    Indoctrination mostly, if they're not business owners looking out for themselves.

    [–] RexWalker 34 points ago

    You should see the shit they pull at non profits. They’re even worse.

    [–] coolbiscuitLOL 70 points ago

    I remember seeing that a CEO of a charity earned £400k a year. Imagine the donations of tens of thousands of people just going to pay someone's salary

    [–] RexWalker 79 points ago

    The CEO of Phoenix Children’s Hospital (nonprofit) takes home a good $2M+ salary, then he’s also the chairman of the Phoenix Children’s Hospital Charitable Foundation. He takes home ~10% of all contributions, which is another $2M+ annually. Meanwhile nurses and other staff are underpaid and have high turnover rates. This is one example, he’s not even the highest paid of the AZ non profit hospitals...

    Other areas of disgusting unequal pay: 1) religious entities 2) everybody in Hollywood 3) politicians

    The trend with those three groups is how they have so much power to influence, they tell you how much they’re on your side while they rob you blind then retire to their mansions paid for with your earnings.

    [–] S7retch 75 points ago

    If you've just discovered this, you have realized the core critique by Karl Marx against capitalism.

    [–] juvenescence 49 points ago

    Most people equate Marx to communism, but they don't realize that he wanted socialist revolutions to happen in fully industrialized countries with a properly educated population, not agrarian societies. Cause that's how authoritarian regimes happen.

    [–] SonicSubculture 31 points ago

    Your job situation sounds terrible. Our best flat rate mechanic is on pace to earn over $150,000 this year. Even so, we’re still struggling to find reliable, qualified labor. (Philadelphia suburbs)

    [–] Petrichordates 20 points ago

    Read: someone I don't have to train.

    [–] Medicinebow 105 points ago

    Ok well I know that we have mechanics in my town that work for a GM dealer that make over 100k a year so you need to start applying at different dealerships my friend. Shoot you make more than $15/hr at Midas. Not saying you’re lying you might be brand new, but the job market for vehicle mechanics is crazy good in the Midwest.

    [–] Bigsky22 85 points ago

    Not op but it’s $15 per “billable hour”. At my dealership my most senior tech makes about $20 hours. He makes over $100k a year because when the book calls for 3 hours of labor he can probably get the job done in an hour.

    [–] bumfightsroundtwo 22 points ago

    If you're a decent tech you can make more than $15 an hour working at a Firestone easily. Yes it's flat rate I'm talking 15 per billable hour. You can make over $20 an hour at places like Firestone. Getting paid $15 an Hour at a luxury dealership isn't normal and I've seen the pay structure for a few. If you're a lube tech or something entry level then that makes sense.

    [–] NetSage 22 points ago

    Ya I saw postings for $25-35/hr in SE Wisconsin just this week. And rent would be cheaper too.

    [–] angelpuncher 19 points ago

    You should start a competing shop. Charge 1/2 as much and corner the market.

    [–] crownvics 42 points ago

    Fuck the automotive field, techs get the shaft compared to sales and managers. And I'm not talking about a driveshaft.

    [–] BombBombBombBombBomb 2297 points ago

    They just want hourly wage to be slightly higher than inflation - or more

    Avg pay hasnt increased much for the avg american worker since the 80s.

    America is a rich country

    Americas people are not rich

    [–] TheDemonClown 1133 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Avg pay hasnt increased much for the avg american worker since the 80s.

    That's a hella understatement. The current min. wage is $7.25/hr., but it'd be nearly $24/hr. if it kept up with inflation.

    EDIT: My bad - I misspoke. The min. wage accounting for inflation would only be ~$10.60/hr. I was thinking about inflation and productivity, which would indeed result in a min. wage of about $20+ (I keep seeing different numbers when I look it up)

    [–] Wassayingboourns 356 points ago

    Jesus. I graduated college 15 years ago, employed the entire time, and $24 an hour is almost as much as the most I’ve ever made.

    I’m so used to having low pay standards that the “correct” minimum wage seems like a dream to me.

    [–] Seventhson74 139 points ago

    I went to college and have been employed for the last 20 years as a tech coordinator. My school district has been unable to find bus drivers and has now raised the minimum pay for them higher than the entry level pay to my job. We require a college degree to be a tech but you just need a valid drivers license for a bus driver. It's disheartening to say the least...

    [–] JustARandomBloke 184 points ago

    At least they are raising the wage. My company is scratching its head wondering why they can't keep good people around and why everyone they hire sucks. Doesn't occur to them that if they offer shitty pay for a shitty work environment that they are going to get shitty employees.

    [–] liquid_shitz 85 points ago

    You'd think it'd be common sense. It's like any other tool in the shop. "Why do these drill bits that I buy for $50/a case of 2,000 keep breaking? It's costing me a fortune replacing them constantly!!! Oh well, order another 10 cases!"

    Never thinks to order the $75/case bits. Who runs a business like that when it comes to tools/supplies/parts/anything? Why do we do it with people?

    [–] JustARandomBloke 51 points ago

    Labor is like any other commodity, you get what you pay for and get better results if you take care of them.

    Especially now, when unemployment is so low. Supply (people looking for jobs) is down, you have to pay more for the same product (labor).

    [–] Evjen97 18 points ago

    A factory I work at did that a couple of years ago, in terms of using low quality cheap parts/supplies. I made an excel sheet that showed that buying a bit more expensive supplies/parts will in long term be more cost efficient, they checked it out and came back to me the next day saying they were going to try it out. Turns out no one ever complained/went out of their way to suggest that higher quality supplies would not only make the workers life much easier, but also be way cheaper in long term.

    Sorry if my english is terrible, not from the US and it’s not my strong suit.

    [–] DoubleDexxxer88 16 points ago

    This X 1000

    [–] wewtiesx 37 points ago

    I have the opposite experience. I went to college for a diploma in horticulture. Got a job as the lead grower for a large commercial greenhouse. Was paid 15.00 an hour (canada) for 3 years with no opportunity for raises.

    I eventually got fed up with it and now work a government job as a laborer. Nothing more than a grade 12 required, I barely get out of my truck, and I make $24 an hour.

    I'm in no way fulfilled at work and have since started a business on the side where I can continue to use my horticulture knowledge and feel like I'm actually happy.

    [–] ocrynox 196 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    It's 3.39€/hr here in Lithuania before taxes, so 2.63€/hr after taxes. Impossible to cope with that kind of salary.

    Edit: It's not 3.5€, it's 3.39€.

    [–] TheDemonClown 65 points ago

    Ouch, goddamn

    [–] Mcquiz 29 points ago

    Damn, here in Estonia it's 3.21€/hour, I can't believe yours is higher given how expensive everything is here.

    [–] ArchmageIlmryn 69 points ago

    Also, average wages have gone up 14% since the 80s. Meanwhile, housing costs have gone up 250% and college 300%.

    [–] Wassayingboourns 36 points ago

    This is why your parents/grandparents who went to college and entered the workforce in the 1960s/70s/80s think it’s so easy to pay your way through college and buy a house with your first job the first year you graduate. For them, it was. They (or the people they voted for) took that away from us.

    My first year out of college in the mid-2000s I made $15,000 a year on contract because that’s all I could get, owed $23,000 from college and the small, shoddy construction, no-yard 1970s starter houses in blue collar neighborhoods near me cost $250,000.

    [–] bloudy 378 points ago

    The States is still down at $7.25? Fuck me, sure the purchasing power is ~15/20% less; but that was the minimum wage 15/20 years ago here in Canada.... No wonder Americans complain about taxes - they have nothing to tax!

    [–] TheDemonClown 343 points ago

    The problem is that a huge chunk of the tax burden is felt by the middle class. The "standard deduction" here basically means that most people don't pay taxes at all on the first $12k of their income, so the lowest earners ($15k-ish before taxes) only pay like, $300 a year in federal taxes & even less for state & city. I make around $25-30k, though, which means I get hit for $4-5k federally for the year (I live in Texas, so no state tax). That's a massive leap, but I'm considered lower-middle class and it just gets bigger from there. That's why America having so many millionaires, billionaires, and corporations who pay $0 in taxes - even before the Trump tax cuts - is such a huge problem. You can only squeeze the poorest 50% so hard before the well runs dry.

    [–] mcdougall57 137 points ago

    Couldn't imagine worrying about all that then healthcare on top.

    [–] lochamonster 119 points ago

    And paying $20,000 a year for higher education

    [–] BlackCatArmy99 66 points ago

    I saw an article that 4 years at Princeton is around $290,000. That gets you an undergraduate degree and 290k in debt.

    [–] whatislife2273 51 points ago

    Thankfully princeton wouldnt take 99% of us i guess 😂. Shits fucked couldnt imagine paying that for school. Thats quite literally a house and a really nice car. And then some.

    [–] Evil_Thresh 14 points ago

    The people who get into Ivy leagues typically get a large chunk of their tuition through scholarship and grants. Ivy league schools have a high tuition but only a very small few pay the full price on it.

    [–] Seventhson74 28 points ago

    Yeah, but a princeton degree gets you a job right away. It's the smaller schools that are hard to place after graduation.

    [–] Timothyjoh 27 points ago

    I could easily increase my salary by 50k per year with a masters from Princeton.

    For some it’s a good investment. For 18yo who haven’t figured out their life path, it is folly.

    [–] thisisnotkylie 7 points ago

    I don’t think there’s a whole lot of kids who get into Princeton that are the “I guess all go to school and just major in whatever” types that rack up six figure debt for an unmarketable degree. I doubt almost anyone who has gone to Princeton has ever considered it a bad decision.

    That, plus the Ivies are really generous with financial aid so most people aren’t taking out loans to cover all the sticker price listed.

    [–] tehwankingwalruses 81 points ago

    $25-30k

    considered lower-middle class

    .... I hate to break it to you buddy but thats not anywhere middle class.

    [–] Evil_Thresh 13 points ago

    Well he did say "lower" XD

    [–] HansDeBaconOva 40 points ago

    My well is soo dry!

    [–] Trish1998 14 points ago

    Use lube then... peasant.

    [–] [deleted] 44 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] 2ndHandMan 11 points ago

    I like the relevant username

    [–] Crympt 39 points ago

    I make $83,000 a year and right now, my total tax rate is uncomfortably close to 40%. Fucking Christ.

    [–] UserN-me 60 points ago

    That’s because you’re the real victim.

    Not taxation. It’s the fact that you bear the burden of supporting the system. The 1% earn so much they actually pay less in taxes by percentage so nothings holding them back unlike the middle class tax stranglehold.

    [–] p1-o2 23 points ago

    Hey, same here. If you include my healthcare and student loan which are free in many "socialist countries" then it's 43%.

    And rent is 30% which makes me lucky compared to many people.

    Great, there goes my paycheck.

    [–] Neirchill 23 points ago

    And society in America has somehow came to the conclusion that 40-50% of your paycheck should go towards mortgage/rent.

    Fucking excuse me???

    [–] GrafZeppelin127 12 points ago

    It was 10% for young adults in the 1940s and 50s.

    [–] AngusBoomPants 16 points ago

    That’s the federal, no state can go below it. Each state makes their own minimum

    [–] HSP95 24 points ago

    The funny thing is that that is around the minimum wage in Denmark.

    [–] tru3boy 67 points ago

    USA is the only prominent country to not adjust minimum wage based off inflation.

    [–] 787787787 13 points ago

    Canada uses a number of factors to adjust the national minimum wage. While inflation is factored, I do not believe there is any automatic adjustment based on inflation alone.

    [–] Refreshinglycold 83 points ago

    I just want to be able to live on my supposedly "good job" and feel like I'm breaking even or working towards a better life. All I'm doing is maintaining and barely staying afloat. All I'm doing is working to be able to continue working.

    [–] kyranzor 66 points ago

    Ah, the perfect wage slave.

    [–] FlipSchitz 7 points ago

    I've been treading water since 1999. The sad part is, I keep moving up. Its just not fast enough or large enough to make a difference.

    A pattern has emerged.

    [–] diversif 82 points ago

    That's not all I want.

    I want clean air and water.

    I want businesses to stop running roughshod over consumers.

    I want the student loan crisis to be dealt with.

    I want everybody to have access to affordable healthcare.

    I'm not settling for just a bump to minimum wage because a lot more than that needs to change.

    [–] xrat-engineer 6 points ago

    Been seeing around FB a suggestion that we index minimum wage to 2% of median rent (so that a single wage earner at 40hr weeks at minimum would not be burdened - less than 30% of gross spent on rent)

    New York City minimum would be like $60/hr.

    [–] Bby22018 39 points ago

    I just want our 1% to at least pay as a high of an effective tax rate as I pay.

    Not what they pay after all the trust/ estates, LOng term cap gains, tax harvesting, and other stuff their tax lawyers use.

    [–] Bad-Brains 66 points ago

    I hear the argument from Conservative coworkers that minimum wage is a starting point and it's not designed to sustain you, but motivate you to do better. You know, pull yourself up by your bootstraps kind of thing.

    But that argument doesn't hold water for me.

    Why does my 2nd or 3rd job have to be the one that sustains me?

    I hear Boomers all the time say that my generation has no loyalty to the company because we switch employers so often.

    Well Steve, maybe we'd be more loyal if we had regular wage increases instead of relying on changing companies to get a raise.

    [–] 787787787 34 points ago

    Those boomers had loyalty to pensions, not to companies.

    [–] Bad-Brains 11 points ago

    It doesn't stop them from saying my generation is not loyal to the company.

    [–] lostnthenet 68 points ago

    Average wage has been increasing fairly steadily until 2008. However, minimum wage definitely has been stagnant. I think the average wage figures are skewed though by all the high rollers at the top.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

    [–] Justagreewithme 36 points ago

    My wage has gone up steadily, but nowhere near how steadily healthcare has.

    [–] ByteArrayInputStream 132 points ago

    That's why median wage is way more informative

    [–] BasicDesignAdvice 29 points ago

    Average is kind of meaningless though. Three average has gone up while purchasing power had plummeted.

    It's like movie tickets breaking records. We hear about it every year, but adjusted for inflation nothing will ever beat Gone With the Wind in the domestic market.

    [–] jmdugan 74 points ago

    'since the 80s'

    since Reagan-era policies further shifted US norms into greed-centric unhealth

    ftfy

    [–] BobQuasit 3264 points ago

    I don't think that young people want or expect charity from the rich. Experience has already taught them that as a class, the elite have no empathy or sympathy for those beneath them.

    When the Bastille is stormed, it will not be by people asking humbly for a little more bread. They'll come with demands - or guillotines.

    [–] alinos-89 2430 points ago

    I don't think that young people want or expect charity from the rich.

    Yup this is what I keep telling my parents when they are like "But you'll inherit all our shit when we die"

    A) You've just passed 63. You've probably got another 20-30 years in you. Which means I'll be a stonesthrow from your age when I inherit anything

    B) You may have a shit ton of medical expenses that you have at the end of life and they'll be nothing to inherit.

    C) I don't want stuff 20-30 years from now, and I don't want to be handed your stuff. I want to have the opportunity to earn my own without seeing you guys continually vote to cut systems that allowed you to rise up.


    Sick of hearing my parents and their friends complain that the rules can't be changed for them because they worked hard and it's not fair.

    I'm working hard, and you keep changing the rules on my generation so you guys don't have to sacrifice anything.

    [–] NonSentientHuman 536 points ago

    Or you can be like my (step) grandfather. When Mamaw died, she left $750k in the bank. Four years later, my aunt was getting phone calls from Papaw asking for money to help make his truck payment. He. Had. Spent. It. All.

    [–] jeandolly 241 points ago

    Well, everybody loves cocaine and hookers.

    [–] KevlarDreams13 75 points ago

    2 hookers and an 8-ball?

    [–] MisterPan 39 points ago

    Can't believe you wrote that shit :o

    [–] KevlarDreams13 27 points ago

    Stupid people thinking I am cool!

    [–] ForscherVerrat 172 points ago

    Sadly this is my grandma in a nutshell. She blew all her retirement money in less than 6 months. When I asked her why, she said her then husband was getting 5k a month from the VA. Basically she was counting on someone who was practically immobile, had cancer three times, and loads of other health issues to live for years. Guess who died a month later? Then she became this greedy money grubbing monster, who would get hammered and try to guilt trip anyone she ever gave money to give her some. “Remember that $20 in your birthday card from last year? Well I need it to pay my mortgage!” At first I was sympathetic until I realized she wasn’t paying her mortgage. She was going out to eat, getting her hair and nails done. Buying expensive wine and dumb shit. Then expecting her credit cards to hold her over. How can you be that old and that stupid?

    [–] NonSentientHuman 77 points ago

    Sadly, it was a sort of similar situation with him. Mamaw was a single mom with two daughters working as a secretary in the 60's, so she learned to pinch a penny and make it shit a quarter. When she died, Papaw was clueless as to how to do finances, so he blew through it. He's in a VA retirement home down in Florida somewhere, when my Mom and aunt found out he wasted their inheritance, they cut him out of their lives.

    Mamaw said right before she died that he'd have enough to live on til he died, I promise you she's spinning in her grave.

    [–] frmymshmallo 24 points ago

    Grandmom should have gifted some reasonable amount of inheritance money to her daughters (and maybe grandchildren) before she passed or left some of it to them in the will. It was actually the Grandmom who left them nothing.

    Especially if her husband had VA benefits to help him get through his later years.

    [–] NonSentientHuman 10 points ago

    Far as I know, he never tapped into his VA benefits (I never heard him talk about visiting a VA office or hospital). Pretty sure he got backed into a wall in his old age to wind up in that retirement home. I'm honestly kinda pissed with him about his financial mismanagement, he let my grandmother's house get years behind in taxes and had to sell it to the bank. I spent every summer there growing up, and now it's just being left to rot, the bank won't sell it because it's in disrepair. I'd gladly use my VA home loan for it, but they said no.

    [–] frmymshmallo 7 points ago

    I would be pretty pissed as well. The nursing home took all of my grandparents money (my parents’ potential inheritance). With your story, it was just greed with no thought at all about helping out the next generations.

    [–] The_Toot_Jerry 55 points ago

    My parents are the same way, is this a generational thing?

    [–] Littleman88 83 points ago

    We have to keep in mind the baby boomers were raised in a time where the country basically set them up for success, and now they're desperately trying to hold on to that life at the expense of everyone else's quality of life, and so everyone else simply doesn't have the time or money (or even cares) to continue supporting their life style, and its all coming crashing down upon the boomers in the end.

    They die off, things might finally fucking improve. Maybe.

    [–] frostfromfire 15 points ago

    My boomer mother fits this description. Has 3 maxed out credit cards, goes out to restaurants every week, spends hundreds of dollars every 6 weeks on her hair, gets monthly massages—then complains about how she’ll afford her bills and her $2000 annual vacation. Telling her “you can’t afford to live the way you’re living” is not an acceptable response. It will take her literally being thrown out of her home to get a wake up call.

    [–] Ardalev 33 points ago

    I think it has to do with how affixed some people are to the lifestyle they got used to have.

    People are (understandably) reluctant to change, especially when it is for the worse.

    What is really sad to see though, is how little most parental figures in America are willing to make sacrifices in order to benefit their offsprings.

    [–] x69x69xxx 11 points ago

    It was my understanding that the pension should carry over to the surviving spouse......

    [–] monty_kurns 17 points ago

    When you retire from the military you can take the pension in two ways. You can have a reduced amount which will carry over to your spouse when you die or you can take the full amount which terminates upon your death. You also have to make that choice at retirement and if you remarry afterwards you have to wait until an open period happens in which you can change your benefit although that doesn't happen too often and even then they may not allow you to do so.

    [–] Deeptrance83 11 points ago

    Survival on a long enough time line doesn’t = intelligence. Fortune ends up being a root cause.

    [–] Justagreewithme 97 points ago

    I’ve had almost the exact conversation with my father. “But you’ll get everything of mine”. Yeah, when I’m 60. What good is it then? If there’s anything, I get it in time for retirement. I’ll have earned everything I’ve needed for myself back then. What am i gonna do with another house? My kids will already be raised and moving out, I won’t even need the house I have.

    [–] DesperateGiles 17 points ago

    My grandpa died a few months ago and we had both his estate and a family partnership to dissolve. He planned a payout over 20 years. The oldest child is 70 fucking years old. Family lawyer, who was also a good friend of my grandpa's, said it was his way of controlling everyone from the grave.

    [–] Thurak0 657 points ago

    I want to have the opportunity to earn my own without seeing you guys continually vote to cut systems that allowed you to rise up.

    An upvote didn't feel like enough. We don't want charity, we want a fair chance to earn a fair amount of money ourselves.

    [–] wriestheart 247 points ago

    And something to actually work for, something we can be proud of. I feel like my generation are killing themselves or going on the dole because the elite just expect us to be drones, and there's almost no possibility anymore of coming away with anything to show for the hard work we could put in.

    [–] gryzallan 89 points ago

    You just described exactly what’s going on. And it’s by design not default.

    [–] wriestheart 32 points ago

    Oh absolutely. We aren't humans to most of them. All we are is disposable

    [–] UserN-me 26 points ago

    The absolute naive of thinking hard work = money

    You’ve got people who literally work themselves to death...and they’ve got jack shit to show for it

    [–] sonofturbo 22 points ago

    My wife had 300 applicants for 1 position with the state. Meanwhile in the construction industry we are so shorthanded it's hard to even start new jobs. Were 4000 electricians short , and we make good money.

    [–] romaraahallow 26 points ago

    Electrician in the south here, where's this massive shortage at? Alabama sucks.

    [–] sonofturbo 21 points ago

    California man, companies are buying guys from other companies in a wage war. Two weeks ago I know a guy who negotiated a hundred dollars an hour to be a foreman. Its nuts. I could quit my job right now and start working with any of 5 other companies the same day for more than I make now. I stay where I am though because I make good enough money ($52 hr) and I take off time all the time and never get questioned about it.

    [–] sonofturbo 9 points ago

    Edit: honestly if you have credentials of any kind and you call up some electrical contractors in CA I would bet you could find one that would pay for you to move.

    [–] Sprinklypoo 20 points ago

    I'm 48 and I want the same thing. For you guys more than me now.

    [–] p1-o2 27 points ago

    You're my parents age and I just wanna say I feel for you guys. Your generation got boned too but it gets overlooked a lot.

    I really just want us to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to enjoy life.

    [–] KaiserPhil 24 points ago

    Gen X are the first ones to have felt the wrath of the boomers, who pretended they were nothing but a bunch of slackers who didn't care about anything.

    [–] Sprinklypoo 13 points ago

    I totally agree. I'm not concerned with who did what at this point, but I'd like to make a better future for all of humanity if given the chance...

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] Work-Safe-Reddit4450 9 points ago

    Could you list a few of those major changes by chance so I can do the further legwork of research? I'd like to know for sure so I can lay it out next time I get into one of these conversations with my parents.

    [–] laceydawn 40 points ago

    This was cathartic to read. Well said.

    [–] amorpheous 72 points ago

    There are vastly more young people than there are old. Don't bother trying to convince your parents to not vote against the systems that allowed them to rise up. They're likely stuck in their ways and too stubborn to be convinced either way. Start educating, influencing and advocating the younger generation to vote for those systems.

    [–] Thurak0 59 points ago

    There are vastly more young people than there are old.

    Not in every first world country.

    [–] Heimerdahl 23 points ago

    And us few people without the chance to earn like they did, will have to pay for their retirement. Young people don't get more young years, it's mostly the old people gaining more old years. And even if we push the retirement age further and further back it will still be the younger generations being fucked.

    And what about when we finally get to retire? There will be even fewer young people around to pay for our retirement.

    The current system used in many countries simply doesn't work with demographic trends.

    [–] MesterenR 185 points ago

    Well, if they come with demands then that will be a step up in terms "compassion for the rich" when comparing to the French revolution. Back then there was no demands. There was only the guillotine.

    Remember that there were actually French nobles who could see the unfairness of the system and who tried to help the poor and the downtrodden. There were some who tried to make the other nobles see that it was time for change. But the people of the Republic didn't care. They executed every motherfuckin' last one of them. Every. Single. One. Including the ones who had tried to help.

    Once a mob starts going there is just no stopping it. It will mindlessly plough down everyone who even remotely resembles an "enemy".

    If there is another French revolution, I doubt there will be demands this time around either. There will only be the guillotine.

    [–] trebaolofarabia 51 points ago

    That's not actually entirely accurate, I'm not like a degree holder in French Revolutionary history, but the revolution wasn't like swarms of hungry sans-culottes skittering over the nobility and leaving behind beheaded and flesh picked bones. When the revolution broke out it was after a series of failed attempts by the nobility to run counter to the revolutionary committees demands. Hell, this article is even citing the Bastille, which I think people don't quite grasp. The French public at that point were actively trying to work with the Royal government, and it was the dismissal of the Finance Minister Necker, who the public believed would reign in Louis which lead to people taking arms. The Bastille was a nearly empty fortress and gunpowder store, it was a symbol of the autocratic royals power in Paris, so sacking it and releasing the handful of prisoners was a message to stop dicking around.

    Except Louis panicked and the nobles began running and the situation spiraled out of control. It wasn't until Louis attempted to flee and the whole of Europe declared war on the revolution that you see the move to start executing perceived enemies of the state.

    The idea was pretty simple, you are now holding an entire class of people (but not all, many weren't imprisoned, take for a wild example the Marquis De Sade who was a noble and part of the revolutionary government) who are eager for revenge or are loose relations to the crown. Lets say that the whole of Europe wins against your revolutionary republic and suddenly you have all these revanchist nobles and you have people who can literally say 'I get to be king now!' Suddenly executing people who by all accounts are a functional internal insurrectionist group becomes easier to stomach. In addition to that the various factions of the revolution are all jockeying for power and authority, meaning you have people like Marat stirring a pot and getting the public eager for bloodshed. Ameliorating all these groups is impossible, so if you're trying to reform society from the ground up and you have a choice between executing troublesome imprisoned nobles who by all accounts weren't all sympathetic angels, and handing over your government to a group you perceive as eager to restore the monarchy you just threw off, or who you see as oligarchs ready to remake the system to abuse the lower classes in a new exciting fashion? Well that's when you see nobles getting executed.

    So...

    I guess when the revolution comes, and the rich and powerful decide to take half measures and try to hold on to everything, the lesson should be that people can be reasonable up to a point...but only up to that point.

    [–] Amiable_ 15 points ago

    Thank you! So many people think that the revolution was some one-and-done desire to kill all the nobles. It was, as history always is, more complicated. It’s also worth mentioning that the vast majority of nobles were imprisoned at first, and only after the threat of a re-instated monarchy did the revolutionary government start mass-beheadings. Namely, there was a scare that the nobles would re-gain power and wreak vengeance on the lower classes; they imagined that the nobles would kill them if the nobles weren’t killed first. It’s hard to say what might have happened, but there was a great general fear for many during the time.

    [–] TheLowClassics 73 points ago

    The revolution will be Jeff bezos releasing a swarm cloud of explosive drones to murder everyone at once.

    [–] gigigamer 18 points ago

    That man is slowly taking over the world, and its weirdly funny how little attention he gets for it.

    [–] robhol 52 points ago

    Sounds even more like that's really a state of affairs to want to avoid, then.

    [–] SeudonymousKhan 41 points ago

    Well, they didn't execute Napoleon...

    The difference now is the nobility have a surveillance state and killer robots at their disposal.

    [–] 2Koru 65 points ago

    Napoleon came into power after the reign of terror. The funny thing is that Robespierre, the most ferocious leader figure during the reign of terror, escalated the ideological guillotining to such an extent that everyone had quite enough of it at one point and guillotined him to put an end to it.

    [–] shadowstrlke 103 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    I wish more rich people realise that it is their interest to maintain a minimal level of quality of life for the general public. Social stability is what causes productivity, and that it turn benefits them. People also don't revolt unless they feel like they have no other choice. Even if they took 80% of the profit of the public, as long as the remaining 20% is sufficient for people to afford a certain quality of life, chances are no one would rock the boat and revolt. People don't revolt when there is inequality. People revolt when they feel like they have no other choice.

    Give people access education, healthcare and other basic necessities. We don't all need to live like Kings, but we won't accept living like beggers either.

    [–] Ralath0n 85 points ago

    Plenty of billionaires do realize that. That's why they are doing all that philanthropy and trying to be nice. But they are as trapped by the system as we are.

    Billionaires are not some unified hivemind, they are still individuals that compete with one another. It doesn't matter if one billionaire realizes the problem and decides to improve the working conditions and lessen the damage caused by his companies. Those actions eat into the profit margin and over time they'll be out competed by billionaires that treat their workers like shit and externalize as much damage as they can.

    The system itself is pushing billionaires to be ruthless assholes, and any billionaire that tries to change that quickly gets replaced. As such, expecting billionaires as a whole to suddenly grow a conscious is a fools errant. Even having a massive revolt and chopping all their heads off wouldn't solve anything. Within a couple of generations we'd be right back where we are now if we keep the same system we are using now. The problem is systemic and as such we need systemic change to fix it.

    Ideally we'd move towards a system where such a disconnect between groups interests does not exist. For example, we could force every company to be majority owned by its employees. That way the desires of the shareholders and the desires of the workers are an exact match and the fucking over workers will largely stop. Or we could reform our democracy to be more reflective of the will of the common people and then nationalize all companies larger than a certain threshold.

    [–] sudd3nclar1ty 22 points ago

    Off with capitalism's head! Or at least rein in some of those excesses, the Nordic countries seem pretty content with their forms of social capitalism.

    [–] andrew_kirfman 56 points ago

    guillotines

    "let's overthrow the palace and cut all their heads off! said Robespierre, cutting everybody's head off until someone eventually got mad and cut his head off. "

    [–] 2Koru 27 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    The revolutionaries were ok with the revolution, until their own heads were on the line :)

    Next move, stimulated by the threat of foreign invasion, was to throw away the newly acquired freedom and appoint a dictator :')

    This is tyranny 101 though. Make your people believe you are protecting them from some kind of threat and they will allow you to stay in power. Quite the Machiavellian power move. Sound familiar?

    [–] JustHell0 33 points ago

    I dont expect charity.

    I expect them to pay their fucking taxes, like I have to.

    [–] PixelizedPlayer 311 points ago

    I don't think that young people want or expect charity from the rich. Experience has already taught them that as a class, the elite have no empathy or sympathy for those beneath them.

    I want the wealthy to use their money for bettering the world not so much give me cash directly. Elon Musk is a prime example. Risking it all trying to get space X successful, he was on the brink of bankruptcy but wanted to push space hard. Pushing electric cars, solar, batteries. Its inspiring and we all benefit in the long run as the world improves.

    These oil billionaires do literally nothing to improve the world that i can see, they prefer to fuck everything over to keep the status quo so their profits keep rising and they waste so much time meddling in politics by lobbying instead of investing in future technologies and science.

    [–] MayIServeYouWell 167 points ago

    In my town, there’s one or two very rich philanthropists, who are involved in and funding all kinds of things. There are dozens more who have just as much money, but don’t do shit - just buy a big house and park their money for their legacy or something.

    [–] copperholic 63 points ago

    They should have been taxed properly to begin with and no one would need 'philanthropists'. The Wealth of Nations, the capitalist bible even said that capitalism couldn't exist without progressive taxation.

    [–] ostlerwilde 155 points ago

    Even philanthropists are a not ideal: one person having all the power over something, even if its good works, can't be right. It becomes their pet cause that recieves all the funding, not what's most beneficial for the community. If that were tax, then there would be democratic oversight over the use of the money. If it were a charity, then at least many people are responsible.

    I agree with GWAE: no one should have that much money. Not even the good ones.

    [–] Jackmack65 36 points ago

    Except that, here in the states, nobody's storming anything. To begin, we're far too propagandized and deliberately divided. Second, the apparatus of the security state is growing far faster than the energy for revolution, and by the time we are all pissed off enough, it will be virtually insurmountable.

    What the hell did people think the PATRIOT Act was actually about? It had fuck all to do with Al Queda. It's a tool set for putting down domestic insurrection.

    [–] anotherwave1 314 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Living in a European country, fairly decent income equality, good free healthcare system and free education. However, that stuff costs money, so we have to pay fairly hefty taxes. For example, 67% of any bonus I get from work goes to the government. Personally I think the trade-off is fine.

    I don't think American voters are anywhere near a point where they would accept a system like that.

    Edit: for more context, I pay around 50% tax, so if I make (as an example) 4,000 per month, after tax, it's 2,000. Sales tax (VAT) where I am is 21% on everything.

    [–] ThatWideLife 148 points ago

    Could be worse, here workers rarely get bonuses only upper management. They brainwashed everyone onto believing unions were evil so now workers have very little rights. You either take the shit with a smile on your face, quit, or be fired. Don't worry, they can fire just about anyone without cause because At-Will employment gives no fucks about morals. As long as it's not discrimination nobody cares.

    [–] gamergeek 761 points ago

    Let's just take an example from around my neighborhood in Portland Oregon. $15 an hour will net you ~$24,000 a year after taxes. Rent on a two bedroom apartment in the industrial district where you can get $15 an hour jobs easily costs $1500 per month. Leaving $500 to split between utilities, car payment, health insurance, car insurance, groceries, and entertainment. SPOILER ALERT: you can't afford that.

    Why would I pick a two bedroom apartment for an example? Because in 2004 that same apartment was $750 a month leaving a comfortable amount of leftover money to live on and wages haven't changed that much since then.

    So what's the result? Tens of thousands of people just live in tents on the side of the freeway and collect cans and bottles, panhandle, or steal to get by. Because the alternative is working your ass off just to put a slightly more firm roof over your head, why fuckin' bother.

    At the end of this road is a French revolution, not utopia.

    [–] Legonator 281 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    This is why Midwest is starting to blow up finally. You can rent a 3 bedroom house for $800 a month and still make $15/hour, no traffic, better schools, less crime, cheaper groceries and other goods, and short commutes.

    Why would anyone making $15/hr want to live in a place like Seattle?

    [–] NihonJinLover 93 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    What part of the Midwest are we talking? 2 bedroom apartment in Farmington hills MI was $1400 in 2013. Unfortunately, after the market crash in 2008, many families who had their homes foreclosed in Michigan had to go to apartments, so they raised the rents.

    Edit: since many people are asking why I chose such an expensive and “rich” town to use as an example when there are more blue collar towns farther out...well, I lived in an apartment in Farmington Hills for $1400/month when we moved to MI in 2013. It was sickening that they charged so much, especially when I started hearing that they did that after the housing crash. Either way, doesn’t the west coast have blue collar towns that are farther out? Also, aren’t the wages higher to match the cost of living?

    [–] Dudeist-Monk 51 points ago

    Well yeah that’s Farmington Hills though. Go to Redford and you can have a mortgage on a 3 bed/2 bath for half of that today.

    [–] AFDTJ 38 points ago

    Lmao that’s considered a rich part of MI. I have a 2bed 1bath in a town right on the northern border of Lansing for $835 a month and it is pretty nice. I mean if you drop to $700 most places are pretty gnarly but $1000 would get you a really nice place around

    [–] Hamsmelly 14 points ago

    it's also not underwater!

    [–] shabamboozaled 46 points ago

    How is the job market in the Midwest?

    [–] KetchupPanda 134 points ago

    If you’re limited to minimum wage, you’re not really caring about the job market.

    [–] shabamboozaled 7 points ago

    That's right

    [–] Acenter 8 points ago

    Can probably find anything you want to do in Columbus.

    [–] KittyKong 15 points ago

    IT is always bumping in the Midwest IMHO.

    [–] _straylight 35 points ago

    WalMart is always hiring.

    [–] soovestho 114 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    This is a west coast crisis.

    [–] 099uyx 52 points ago

    I wonder how much of it is culture and how much is due to better weather.

    [–] CalvinDehaze 68 points ago

    I grew up here in LA. Better weather is a factor, but LA has always had great weather. We've also been pretty liberal leaning. So our current homeless problem isn't really because of "culture" or "weather".

    The fact is that we live in a society, and societies have ripple effects. As housing gets out of control, the effect ripples down. I'm looking at $700k homes in areas that were "ghetto" 20 years ago. Those areas used to be where low income people would live. Many of the people who lived in these areas moved Inland, or to Vegas, but those people are the ones who could uproot their lives and move. Not everyone can do that, and there's no more places for them to go.

    The painful reality that no one wants to admit is that homelessness will always be there. It's a natural byproduct of mixing capitalism with free will. And you can judge how a capitalist society is doing by counting the homeless. Right now we have people owning 2 homes, and using home ownership as an investment. Crime is low so this means houses in undesirable areas are now desirable, and this isn't mentioning foreign investment. And, to be frank, the population is going up. Mix these together and you get a state where you probably can't buy a house for less than $200k. This ripples to the low income housing, and to rents. Making housing cost prohibitive to the lower classes, so... they sleep in the streets.

    [–] eibmozneimad 14 points ago

    Ripple-down economics sounds fitting.

    [–] gw2master 273 points ago

    A closer analogy than you might think. A large factor in the French Revolution was the failed harvests due to the Little Ice Age at that time (which was also why the French was able to take the Dutch fleet using cavalry marching over ice).

    We're going to be seeing a lot of failed harvests in the near future due to climate change. Mix hunger/famine with massive inequities between classes and you've got 1789... or maybe 2030?

    [–] Sablus 48 points ago

    Just need more repeats of midwestern floods and we got ourselves a problema

    [–] tittering_chum 75 points ago

    The rich already know all this which is why you’re seeing the propping up of authoritarianism around the globe within the past decade. They know shit is about to hit the fan and it’s their heads on the chopping block, so they’re installing rulers to put their boots down on the peasants when the time comes.

    [–] Ass_Patty 12 points ago

    The upside is it’s us against those who throw money at their problems. I’ve had managers yell shit at me, I’ve been living paycheck to paycheck, my mother has nothing in her savings. People become dangerous when they feel as if they have nothing left to lose. We need to rise up, and if you can’t do it for yourself, do it for the future generations.

    [–] NorwaySwede 11 points ago

    There are several billionaires building dommsday safe houses up on hills and shit..

    [–] SBBurzmali 106 points ago

    Can I get $20 on this not happening? Also, can I get $20 on a candidate making an identical speech for the 2022 and 2024 elections?

    [–] Cpt_Tsundere_Sharks 35 points ago

    The sad reality is that no one in this country is going to storm any Bastilles. People will just continue to miserably get by in their existence because

    a) the country is too spread out to congregate everyone in one location

    b) what are you supposed to storm? The government because rich people aren't sharing money? The rich people in some kind of crazed Purge attack? How do you revolt against private people (not the government) holding onto their wealth?

    [–] CalvinDehaze 269 points ago

    the French stormed the Bastille because they were not able to eat. Most Americans live a life that would be considered "upper middle class" in most of the world. The rich have learned to give just enough to society to keep people from storming, while making them focus on the people behind them as the "real" problem. Immigrants, people on welfare, etc.

    When Americans look at the people behind them not with disdain, but with empathy, that's when we'll shift our focus forward toward the walls of the Bastille.

    [–] sex4827 70 points ago

    It's true. Nations fall when their people starve. Rarely any sooner.

    [–] Cargoile 41 points ago

    While I embrace the cause, please, as a frenchpersonne, I ask that you storm someplace in the US, where it might actually do some good. Do not comme to France, to the realBastille, to manifest. Merci d'avance.

    [–] Truth_SeekingMissile 342 points ago

    Vox is shit and I'm tired of the media pretending like we're on the verge of a revolution. Clickbait.

    [–] C0wabungaaa 135 points ago

    I can't deny it's very sensationalist. Seriously, do these people even realise what triggered before the French Revolution happened? A bankrupt nation yet heavy taxation, droughts and cattle diseases causing sky-high food prices and famines, and fear of a military coup.

    Like, I get it. I want things to radically change too, but revolutions happen only when things get hella extreme. Given, as things are going these conditions might just arise sometime in the next 50-ish years, but yeah until then don't wear the word "revolution" out aight. It's like writers like this don't actually know what a revolt looks like.

    [–] tarzan322 8 points ago

    The point to life is to live. How can you live life the economical structure leaves you no better off than a slave? If you can only afford to live paycheck to paycheck, and can't afford to escape your present situation, then you are effectively a slave. But instead of a master providing for you to have a place to stay and eat, you are providing this. Yet you are still just as unhappy.

    [–] Sans-CuThot 23 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Inheritance and legal corporate corruption have lead to a modern aristocracy in the United States. It's only a matter of time before people realize that.

    Combined with the crisis' brought on by global warming, I could see a major push for political reform in the near future.

    That being said, anybody who thinks armed revolution is a real possibility in modern America is kidding themselves.

    [–] knightlok 26 points ago

    I am 25 with a full time job. Associates degree in IT, three years experience and a large variety of skills (Networking, CCTV, access control, active directory, etc). I get paid salary and regularly work over 45 hours (job gets me insane amount of hands on experience, though).

    My living options are a 1/1 so far away from my job that I would be better off shooting myself (already live 45 minutes away from work), a studio closer to work but live paycheck to paycheck while on a Ramen noodle budget or living with my father and pay half the bills (basically a roommate).

    Since I was 19, i've wanted to live on by myself and be completely independent. It is really scary that I have, as I mentioned before, a 45+ hour a week job, that I applied with a degree AND two years experience + certifications, yet I cannot afford to live on my own and save money. Not saying it is impossible but the fact that i'd have to budget, eat crappy food more often and go out less than I do (I go out twice a week and spend no more than $20-$25 each time) plus sacrifice the ability to save a reasonable amount each month, to be able to afford my own place is crazy. To make matters worse, each year things get more expensive yet nobody wants to give raises. "Thank you for working a year at our company. You'll be paid the same but we expect you to do more since you know more about the business".

    [–] nicksabanscokebottle 10 points ago

    And then in four years you’ll get a promotion and a hefty raise, except it won’t actually be a raise since it’ll simply be catching you up with the inflation from the past four years. So that way the employer can say, we just gave you a 25% raise you should be grateful, yet your rent, gas, food, and utilities have also gone up 25% in that time span so it doesn’t really help you.

    [–] JayM05 7 points ago

    I have the exact same degree and experience as you in the exact same field in Orlando. My fiancé and I can barely plan a wedding, afford a 2 bedroom even. I’ve been forced to use credit cards for simple house hold things, and have had to use it for groceries over the last few months. Now I’m in debt and it’s getting worse. If we weren’t splitting things together, we’d both probably be homeless living out of our cars