Which is really funny because brass tacs, there's WAY more resources available now. There's just one glaring issue:
They've all been misappropriated thanks to leftist policies on immigration, diversity and inclusion, law and order etc
If these same policies we have today were around during the 1950s, it would look like a hellscape whereas if WE had 1950's policies implemented now, we'd probably be happier than anytime in history.
Zoomers are going to live adult lives that are objectively harder in financial terms, less prosperous, less secure and ultimately less free than their parents and grandparents, and all of it because the preceding generations allowed themselves to be convinced that it's for their own good.
You cite the worst sources. That's not an ad hominem. Wikipedia, the New York Times, then you cited an Italian actor's ravings about Russia, and now this lowlife.
Of course a guy with the regime's flag in his username is going to support the regime.
I don't need to background check people who post to independent data sources because their background doesn't matter. It's irrelevant.
People's credibility matters a great deal.
Folks with rainbow usernames don't have credibility when it comes to economics. Nor do Italian actors have credibility when it comes to international affairs.
He literally posted sources and charts
Ah, GDP charts.
Funny thing is, GDP charts show my country getting richer and richer, and yet everyone keeps getting poorer.
It doesn't matter if he's a faggot. It's irrelevant to his point. Learn how argument works.
I don't put much stock in the judgment of people who can't tell women apart from men. In this case, he is literally wearing the regime's flag, so why on earth would you think that his defense of the regime is in any way made in good faith, or is reliable?
Which is why you now need a college degree to stock the shelves at the Gap. Sending half of America to college didn't elevate them, it just degraded the value of the degree and the quality of the education.
It mostly created another enormous administrative class that functions primarily to massively indebt our youth while programming them to destroy their own cultures, peoples, and nations. College administrations have exploded in size and cost since the 50s, and the vast majority of that money is not serving students’ education.
Few counter arguments here, the lack of college degrees were due to colleges not being printing presses for useless degrees in the 1950s and things like thesis papers and dissertations still existed. Cars were less necessary than they are today because there were larger homesteads (more people per house) who only needed one vehicle for several people and public transportation wasn’t homeless people and drugs addicts waiting to mug you or pissing on the floor. The economy had not reached full fiat manipulation yet. You could maybe argue housing but even then it was normal for large multigenerational families in smaller homes because they were building the infrastructure we utilize to this day and demand for each generation to live separately was not only not a thing it was considered abnormal for children to leave their parents home until they themselves were married.
I find that 66% of Americans are homeowners statistic to be suspect as well. Are they counting people that "own" their home, but are underwater on their zero down mortgage?
To me, you don't really own your home unless it's completely paid off. So, what percentage of that 66% have active mortgages, and how much equity do they have in their homes? Now do that same analysis for the 55% figure he provides from the 1950s. I would be willing to bet there's a lot more equity in houses in the past.
even then it was normal for large multigenerational families in smaller homes
That's the same thing that happens today, practically none of my generation owns property. We just can't afford it. Several of my friends split their time between living at their parents home, and living at their parents-in-laws home. And that's with both of them working full time jobs.
Several of my friends split their time between living at their parents home, and living at their parents-in-laws home.
Think I've found why they can't afford a home. They jumped to the rigged business contract and are now on the hook for someone else's expenses.
If people really wanted to make an argument about how wealth hasn't gotten harder to get, they'd point out the idiots paying two sets of bills and looking for a more expensive property because they couldn't bear the idea of not cooming.
Most people here don't like Ukraine, but if someone started spamming every single thread by complaining about that non-country and blaming every ill on it, he would be very much disliked.
You could maybe argue housing but even then it was normal for large multigenerational families
Yeah, and as I said in my other comment, we've got more single people and working single women now. If you adjust for that, it's possible - just possible, I haven't calculated or anything - that homeownership is down. 55% to 66% percent doesn't seem like a huge change given the huge changes to society. Some questions certainly remain.
Some, in my opinion, faulty assumptions here. 3/10 vs 9/10 car ownership, let's break that down. So there are more cars per person now, is that really guaranteed to be an improvement? Note that I'm not even arguing it can't be an improvement, just that it's not inherently one. Childlessness is on the rise, women are working, there are more single people. If women were mostly stay at home, and didn't need a car during the day...boom, there's 5/10 cars gone, or roughly. Bringing you down to 4/10, which is close to 3/10. It was just a different environment. It's like saying we live better lives now, or have more opportunity, just because everyone has a smartphone. Which is a laughable statement.
I'd also need to see his definitions of things like "person" (children don't need cars), and homeownership (do the stay at home wives/mothers count as not owning a home?). Also, pardon me for being skeptical of a rainbow flagger talking about family life as they - #NotAll, and all that - tend to be very anti-family.
So, yeah, you've got more single people, more childlessness, more working women. Of course homeownership and car ownership are going to be higher now. Heck, adjusted for those issues, homeownership may very well be down, depending on how this was mathed.
The tweeter than goes on to cite GDP...which is notoriously fake and gay. I don't give a single shit about GDP, especially if it was in a less globalized environment; more of the money was staying in the community/country. GDP isn't a completely worthless metric, but it's often used by Statist goons who think people are nice little communist-style cogs in the machine.
I don't know this guy's politics - although I can make assumptions based on prominent sexuality and pronouns - but it's pretty funny he's pushing the GDP-line, when I wouldn't be surprised if it goes against all his other beliefs generally, when not being used as a bludgeon against the family.
So, yeah, his cars and home ownership have some at least potential holes in it...and college is in many ways completely useless, and getting more so. The metrics just don't, to me, make a compelling argument.
So there are more cars per person now, is that really guaranteed to be an improvement?
yes
If women were mostly stay at home, and didn't need a car during the day...boom, there's 5/10 cars gone, or roughly.
I don't know what you're smoking, but every 1-income household I know still has 2 cars. Do you not understand the concept of needing to run errands and do shopping during the day?
It's like saying we live better lives now, or have more opportunity, just because everyone has a smartphone. Which is a laughable statement.
It's a correct statement and you calling it "laughable" for reasons unknown does not invalidate it. Perhaps you just hate smartphones, I don't know, but they are unarguably an extraordinary advance for society. Everyone can walk around with the whole power of the internet in the palm of their hand.
Also, pardon me for being skeptical of a rainbow flagger talking about
Bo-fucking-ho. Also, you cut off the part where I explain why that leads to my skepticism. It's not 'oh, he's gay, I don't listen to faggots' it's 'oh, he's gay, and I've noticed trends in aggregate in that community that leads to a bias against family.'
Ironic coming from someone who was just yesterday saying "Blacks are more easily programmed because they are so mentally inferior to all other races as a group, in aggregate."
That's alright, but me pointing out that gays are often anti-family is 'ad hominem.' If true, don't care.
Oh, and GDP is fake and gay, I stand by that. And I did say it's not completely useless, just often manipulated.
True, I should have been more specific. I meant more 'ideologically Gay' than just 'homosexual.' I think there's some overlap, but it's really the Gays that are most staunchly anti-family, versus the gays.
they are unarguably an extraordinary advance for society. Everyone can walk around with the whole power of the internet in the palm of their hand.
And everything just keeps going to sh*t due to them.
Just because I use a smartphone, does not mean that I have to pretend that they have not done an enormous amount of damage to society. That is no advance.
okay, I'm done here.
I'd rather have a lower GDP with healthy families, low crime, a homogeneous society, than a higher GDP with rampant disorder, gangs, fatherlessness, crime everywhere, and an atomized society.
Just because I use a smartphone, does not mean that I have to pretend that they have not done an enormous amount of damage to society. That is no advance.
What harm do you think smartphones have done? It's literally just a tool. How people use it is up to them and human nature. It's like saying "guns are bad".
If you have a problem with social media in particular, that's not smart phones. Tiktok isn't smart phones.
It's literally just a tool. How people use it is up to them and human nature. It's like saying "guns are bad".
I'd argue it's more like 'porn is harmful' or '24/7 news is harmful' or 'fast food is harmful.' It comes down to personal choice in all those issues but, on average and society wide, it's making things worse.
If you have a problem with social media in particular, that's not smart phones. Tiktok isn't smart phones.
Smartphones make all the more accessible, 24/7. Smartphones make the perpetually online life more accessible. There's a lot of overlap between smartphones and social media.
I'd argue it's more like 'porn is harmful' or '24/7 news is harmful' or 'fast food is harmful.' It comes down to personal choice in all those issues but, on average and society wide, it's making things worse.
But instead of saying any of those things, you're attacking the television that allows you to watch them, or the car that drives you to them. See my point? You're not attacking tiktok, you're attacking the smartphone that enables tons of different things, the vast majority of which are beneficial, but one of which is use of tiktok. Similarly, guns are used in beneficial ways 99% of the time, but because of the 1% of the time they are misused, the libs want to ban all guns.
There's overlap. There's the technological smartphone, and the 'societal' smartphone. When talking smartphones, you're not just talking the literal device (which I agree is a freaking marvel), you're talking all that that entails. You're talking universal access to the internet, you're talking constant access to the internet. And you're talking normalization of that constant access. That might be the biggest issue, just moving societal norms in the direction of digital interaction instead of personal interaction. "Smartphone" is almost just shorthand for 'a society where everyone is plugged in every day, and that's the norm.' There's massive implications to the proliferation of an otherwise neutral technology like a smartphone.
What harm do you think smartphones have done? It's literally just a tool. How people use it is up to them and human nature. It's like saying "guns are bad".
By that logic, nothing at all is bad. You could claim that smartphones are not inherently bad, and I'll agree with that, but how they are used certainly makes them a net negative. That is why the modern West has become the shithole that it is.
If you have a problem with social media in particular, that's not smart phones. Tiktok isn't smart phones.
There's potential for an infinite number of Tiktoks. And besides, it's not just Tiktok. How do you think you export troonery and BLM to other countries? It is through Facebook, Youtube and Twitter.
Was curious, so I dug into Joey's sources, specifically on homeownership. It shows basically what I expected. So he's saying it rose from 55% to 66%. By his own census data, some interesting trends emerge.
1950s: 1 person households - 42.1%
2000s: 52.1%
Huh. So it's like I said in my other comment, it's people living separately, instead of as a family.
Let's keep digging:
1950s: Mobile homes - 79.4%
2000s: 79.2%
So there hasn't been a huge change in living conditions, the proportions have stayed steady.
Now, here's the best one:
1950s: Age 65 and over - 67.9%
2000s: Age 65 and over - 78.1%
So, trying to compare the "zoomers" to the boomers is a swing and a miss, there, big time. It's not the current generation that has seen an upswing in homeownership.
The change seems to be mostly in older generations and single people, when in the past at least some of those single people would have been living in a house anyway, just not listed as the homeowner.
So, as I guessed before digging into it, things do seem worse now on the homeownership front, even according to this guy's own sources.
So it's like I said in my other comment, it's people living separately, instead of as a family.
True, which makes the difference starker since you need double the houses to house single people as opposed to married people, AND affording your own home on a single income as a single person is much harder than having a family.
1950s: Mobile homes - 79.4% 2000s: 79.2%
I don't know what this is, but nowhere near 79% of people live in mobile homes.
It's not the current generation that has seen an upswing in homeownership.
You don't know that. Just because old people are more likely to own homes now doesn't mean under-65 are not.
even according to this guy's own sources.
I welcome you to bring "your own" sources. This guy is just using official stats.
I also reject home ownership as being so important. I choose to rent because it's a superior financial choice. I save a lot of money which I put in the stock market. If house prices crash, THEN I can buy at a huge discount. Otherwise, the stock market is objectively better.
You don't know that. Just because old people are more likely to own homes now doesn't mean under-65 are not.
I think like many a stat, its going to depend wildly on where in the country you are. Like the stats I always see about how "no one is having children, getting married, etc" for all of the life events. Yet where I live out on the Great Plains, there are tons of children in my town (and yes, they were white. Since that is usually what people complain about), people are getting and staying married, people are getting good jobs, etc.
Also, on the note of the OP image: You can do all of that stuff on one income still like your grandparents did. You just have to have only one car, have a house about half the size of the average modern home (and of course, your children bunk it up instead of getting individual rooms), you cant have internet, you cant have a phone, you cant have anything more than basic cable for a TV, etc. The list goes on, but I think you get the hint. People complain about how a 1950's income doesnt work anymore, while wanting a 2020's lifestyle on a 1950's income.
People complain about how a 1950's income doesnt work anymore, while wanting a 2020's lifestyle on a 1950's income.
True
Yet where I live out on the Great Plains, there are tons of children in my town (and yes, they were white. Since that is usually what people complain about), people are getting and staying married, people are getting good jobs, etc.
The people complaining are zoomers who grew up in deep blue urban cores like Seattle, New York, DC, LA, SF, etc and feel entitled to have the same lifestyle at 25 that their parents had at 45. Many of these zoomers feel superior and entitled, many have advanced and valuable degrees, and many even make more money than their parents did at their age, yet are outraged that this doesn't translate into skipping ahead 25-35 years and leapfrogging ahead of their parents.
My grandparents bought their house for $15k in the LA area. At the time they bought it, it was cheap because it was in the middle of buttfuck nowhere. Obviously 50 years later, it's in the center of an urban core. Following this analogy, the zoomers can easily afford to buy a big house, bigger than their parents/grandparents at their age if they're willing to live far away and commute which, of course, many of them aren't, but thems the breaks.
And yes, commutes were shorter 50 years ago. There was less of everything back then. Fewer people, smaller cities, fewer cars, so yeah, commutes were shorter. That's how development works. My grandparents moved to LA back when it was still a "developing" city. They didn't try to go live and work in NYC.
Zoomers don't want to move to a smaller city. They want to be in the biggest big cities. They want to live downtown in a hipster loft and go to all the trendy places on Yelp. Well, tough shit. Real estate is a product of the wealth of who bids, and older people who have had more years of work to build up a savings have by far more buying power, so they will get the houses in the more desirable areas. Zoomers have to accept living farther away if they want their own house on the cheap.
I'm kind of looking forward to Trump's industrialization plan. I doubt it will be as successful as he promises but if it is we could totally rebuild American capital and family capital.
I mean it depends, in terms resources and opportunities, zoomers have it better
In terms of social cohesion, traditional values and family ties, the boomers had it WAY better
So which do value more, the materialistic or the more spiritual and cultural?
And despite all that, they grew up to be materialistic hippies.
the context for the post was 100% based on material, not culture.
Which is really funny because brass tacs, there's WAY more resources available now. There's just one glaring issue:
They've all been misappropriated thanks to leftist policies on immigration, diversity and inclusion, law and order etc
If these same policies we have today were around during the 1950s, it would look like a hellscape whereas if WE had 1950's policies implemented now, we'd probably be happier than anytime in history.
Zoomers are going to live adult lives that are objectively harder in financial terms, less prosperous, less secure and ultimately less free than their parents and grandparents, and all of it because the preceding generations allowed themselves to be convinced that it's for their own good.
Rainbow flag with
In his bio shilling for the regime.
No way!
Rainbow flagger pronoun pushing the GDP worker drone position, and against the family unit. Shock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
You cite the worst sources. That's not an ad hominem. Wikipedia, the New York Times, then you cited an Italian actor's ravings about Russia, and now this lowlife.
Of course a guy with the regime's flag in his username is going to support the regime.
I don't need to background check people who post to independent data sources because their background doesn't matter. It's irrelevant.
He literally posted sources and charts: https://twitter.com/JosephPolitano/status/1638379679781474304
It doesn't matter if he's a faggot. It's irrelevant to his point. Learn how argument works.
People's credibility matters a great deal.
Folks with rainbow usernames don't have credibility when it comes to economics. Nor do Italian actors have credibility when it comes to international affairs.
Ah, GDP charts.
Funny thing is, GDP charts show my country getting richer and richer, and yet everyone keeps getting poorer.
I don't put much stock in the judgment of people who can't tell women apart from men. In this case, he is literally wearing the regime's flag, so why on earth would you think that his defense of the regime is in any way made in good faith, or is reliable?
Which is why you now need a college degree to stock the shelves at the Gap. Sending half of America to college didn't elevate them, it just degraded the value of the degree and the quality of the education.
It mostly created another enormous administrative class that functions primarily to massively indebt our youth while programming them to destroy their own cultures, peoples, and nations. College administrations have exploded in size and cost since the 50s, and the vast majority of that money is not serving students’ education.
Few counter arguments here, the lack of college degrees were due to colleges not being printing presses for useless degrees in the 1950s and things like thesis papers and dissertations still existed. Cars were less necessary than they are today because there were larger homesteads (more people per house) who only needed one vehicle for several people and public transportation wasn’t homeless people and drugs addicts waiting to mug you or pissing on the floor. The economy had not reached full fiat manipulation yet. You could maybe argue housing but even then it was normal for large multigenerational families in smaller homes because they were building the infrastructure we utilize to this day and demand for each generation to live separately was not only not a thing it was considered abnormal for children to leave their parents home until they themselves were married.
I find that 66% of Americans are homeowners statistic to be suspect as well. Are they counting people that "own" their home, but are underwater on their zero down mortgage?
To me, you don't really own your home unless it's completely paid off. So, what percentage of that 66% have active mortgages, and how much equity do they have in their homes? Now do that same analysis for the 55% figure he provides from the 1950s. I would be willing to bet there's a lot more equity in houses in the past.
That's the same thing that happens today, practically none of my generation owns property. We just can't afford it. Several of my friends split their time between living at their parents home, and living at their parents-in-laws home. And that's with both of them working full time jobs.
The world is shit.
Think I've found why they can't afford a home. They jumped to the rigged business contract and are now on the hook for someone else's expenses.
If people really wanted to make an argument about how wealth hasn't gotten harder to get, they'd point out the idiots paying two sets of bills and looking for a more expensive property because they couldn't bear the idea of not cooming.
Most people here don't like Ukraine, but if someone started spamming every single thread by complaining about that non-country and blaming every ill on it, he would be very much disliked.
Yeah, and as I said in my other comment, we've got more single people and working single women now. If you adjust for that, it's possible - just possible, I haven't calculated or anything - that homeownership is down. 55% to 66% percent doesn't seem like a huge change given the huge changes to society. Some questions certainly remain.
Women's homeownership is higher than men's, because of the amount of wealth they've stolen.
I'm shocked - shocked, I say! - that you'd make such a statement.
It's factually accurate.
Or -- OR -- in this case, women just outlived their spouses (on average), and older people/married couples are more likely to own a home.
(insert your own conspiracy theory as to why they outlived their spouses here)
Some, in my opinion, faulty assumptions here. 3/10 vs 9/10 car ownership, let's break that down. So there are more cars per person now, is that really guaranteed to be an improvement? Note that I'm not even arguing it can't be an improvement, just that it's not inherently one. Childlessness is on the rise, women are working, there are more single people. If women were mostly stay at home, and didn't need a car during the day...boom, there's 5/10 cars gone, or roughly. Bringing you down to 4/10, which is close to 3/10. It was just a different environment. It's like saying we live better lives now, or have more opportunity, just because everyone has a smartphone. Which is a laughable statement.
I'd also need to see his definitions of things like "person" (children don't need cars), and homeownership (do the stay at home wives/mothers count as not owning a home?). Also, pardon me for being skeptical of a rainbow flagger talking about family life as they - #NotAll, and all that - tend to be very anti-family.
So, yeah, you've got more single people, more childlessness, more working women. Of course homeownership and car ownership are going to be higher now. Heck, adjusted for those issues, homeownership may very well be down, depending on how this was mathed.
The tweeter than goes on to cite GDP...which is notoriously fake and gay. I don't give a single shit about GDP, especially if it was in a less globalized environment; more of the money was staying in the community/country. GDP isn't a completely worthless metric, but it's often used by Statist goons who think people are nice little communist-style cogs in the machine.
I don't know this guy's politics - although I can make assumptions based on prominent sexuality and pronouns - but it's pretty funny he's pushing the GDP-line, when I wouldn't be surprised if it goes against all his other beliefs generally, when not being used as a bludgeon against the family.
So, yeah, his cars and home ownership have some at least potential holes in it...and college is in many ways completely useless, and getting more so. The metrics just don't, to me, make a compelling argument.
yes
I don't know what you're smoking, but every 1-income household I know still has 2 cars. Do you not understand the concept of needing to run errands and do shopping during the day?
It's a correct statement and you calling it "laughable" for reasons unknown does not invalidate it. Perhaps you just hate smartphones, I don't know, but they are unarguably an extraordinary advance for society. Everyone can walk around with the whole power of the internet in the palm of their hand.
literal ad hominem
okay, I'm done here.
Bo-fucking-ho. Also, you cut off the part where I explain why that leads to my skepticism. It's not 'oh, he's gay, I don't listen to faggots' it's 'oh, he's gay, and I've noticed trends in aggregate in that community that leads to a bias against family.'
Ironic coming from someone who was just yesterday saying "Blacks are more easily programmed because they are so mentally inferior to all other races as a group, in aggregate."
That's alright, but me pointing out that gays are often anti-family is 'ad hominem.' If true, don't care.
Oh, and GDP is fake and gay, I stand by that. And I did say it's not completely useless, just often manipulated.
Deka is a civnat corporatist faggot. Don’t bother.
It's not even "he is a homosexual". It's that he puts that hideous groomer flag in his username, and has pronouns in bio.
True, I should have been more specific. I meant more 'ideologically Gay' than just 'homosexual.' I think there's some overlap, but it's really the Gays that are most staunchly anti-family, versus the gays.
And everything just keeps going to sh*t due to them.
Just because I use a smartphone, does not mean that I have to pretend that they have not done an enormous amount of damage to society. That is no advance.
I'd rather have a lower GDP with healthy families, low crime, a homogeneous society, than a higher GDP with rampant disorder, gangs, fatherlessness, crime everywhere, and an atomized society.
What harm do you think smartphones have done? It's literally just a tool. How people use it is up to them and human nature. It's like saying "guns are bad".
If you have a problem with social media in particular, that's not smart phones. Tiktok isn't smart phones.
I'd argue it's more like 'porn is harmful' or '24/7 news is harmful' or 'fast food is harmful.' It comes down to personal choice in all those issues but, on average and society wide, it's making things worse.
Smartphones make all the more accessible, 24/7. Smartphones make the perpetually online life more accessible. There's a lot of overlap between smartphones and social media.
But instead of saying any of those things, you're attacking the television that allows you to watch them, or the car that drives you to them. See my point? You're not attacking tiktok, you're attacking the smartphone that enables tons of different things, the vast majority of which are beneficial, but one of which is use of tiktok. Similarly, guns are used in beneficial ways 99% of the time, but because of the 1% of the time they are misused, the libs want to ban all guns.
There's overlap. There's the technological smartphone, and the 'societal' smartphone. When talking smartphones, you're not just talking the literal device (which I agree is a freaking marvel), you're talking all that that entails. You're talking universal access to the internet, you're talking constant access to the internet. And you're talking normalization of that constant access. That might be the biggest issue, just moving societal norms in the direction of digital interaction instead of personal interaction. "Smartphone" is almost just shorthand for 'a society where everyone is plugged in every day, and that's the norm.' There's massive implications to the proliferation of an otherwise neutral technology like a smartphone.
By that logic, nothing at all is bad. You could claim that smartphones are not inherently bad, and I'll agree with that, but how they are used certainly makes them a net negative. That is why the modern West has become the shithole that it is.
There's potential for an infinite number of Tiktoks. And besides, it's not just Tiktok. How do you think you export troonery and BLM to other countries? It is through Facebook, Youtube and Twitter.
Some things were better I’m sure. Some things not so much. My grandfather hated what he called wickedness on display
Just out of curiosity: what was the wickedness on display he didn't like?
You name it. Lol. He was born in 1918 so he didn’t care for how loose women had become or the disrespect for the Bible and church
I adore him already.
But I was a bit confused, I thought he was calling wickedness on some things that were better then than now.
The queer you linked to is mentally deranged and his takes start with a conclusion and work backwards.
Was curious, so I dug into Joey's sources, specifically on homeownership. It shows basically what I expected. So he's saying it rose from 55% to 66%. By his own census data, some interesting trends emerge.
1950s: 1 person households - 42.1%
2000s: 52.1%
Huh. So it's like I said in my other comment, it's people living separately, instead of as a family.
Let's keep digging:
1950s: Mobile homes - 79.4%
2000s: 79.2%
So there hasn't been a huge change in living conditions, the proportions have stayed steady.
Now, here's the best one:
1950s: Age 65 and over - 67.9%
2000s: Age 65 and over - 78.1%
So, trying to compare the "zoomers" to the boomers is a swing and a miss, there, big time. It's not the current generation that has seen an upswing in homeownership.
The change seems to be mostly in older generations and single people, when in the past at least some of those single people would have been living in a house anyway, just not listed as the homeowner.
So, as I guessed before digging into it, things do seem worse now on the homeownership front, even according to this guy's own sources.
True, which makes the difference starker since you need double the houses to house single people as opposed to married people, AND affording your own home on a single income as a single person is much harder than having a family.
I don't know what this is, but nowhere near 79% of people live in mobile homes.
You don't know that. Just because old people are more likely to own homes now doesn't mean under-65 are not.
I welcome you to bring "your own" sources. This guy is just using official stats.
I also reject home ownership as being so important. I choose to rent because it's a superior financial choice. I save a lot of money which I put in the stock market. If house prices crash, THEN I can buy at a huge discount. Otherwise, the stock market is objectively better.
I think like many a stat, its going to depend wildly on where in the country you are. Like the stats I always see about how "no one is having children, getting married, etc" for all of the life events. Yet where I live out on the Great Plains, there are tons of children in my town (and yes, they were white. Since that is usually what people complain about), people are getting and staying married, people are getting good jobs, etc.
Also, on the note of the OP image: You can do all of that stuff on one income still like your grandparents did. You just have to have only one car, have a house about half the size of the average modern home (and of course, your children bunk it up instead of getting individual rooms), you cant have internet, you cant have a phone, you cant have anything more than basic cable for a TV, etc. The list goes on, but I think you get the hint. People complain about how a 1950's income doesnt work anymore, while wanting a 2020's lifestyle on a 1950's income.
True
The people complaining are zoomers who grew up in deep blue urban cores like Seattle, New York, DC, LA, SF, etc and feel entitled to have the same lifestyle at 25 that their parents had at 45. Many of these zoomers feel superior and entitled, many have advanced and valuable degrees, and many even make more money than their parents did at their age, yet are outraged that this doesn't translate into skipping ahead 25-35 years and leapfrogging ahead of their parents.
My grandparents bought their house for $15k in the LA area. At the time they bought it, it was cheap because it was in the middle of buttfuck nowhere. Obviously 50 years later, it's in the center of an urban core. Following this analogy, the zoomers can easily afford to buy a big house, bigger than their parents/grandparents at their age if they're willing to live far away and commute which, of course, many of them aren't, but thems the breaks.
And yes, commutes were shorter 50 years ago. There was less of everything back then. Fewer people, smaller cities, fewer cars, so yeah, commutes were shorter. That's how development works. My grandparents moved to LA back when it was still a "developing" city. They didn't try to go live and work in NYC.
Zoomers don't want to move to a smaller city. They want to be in the biggest big cities. They want to live downtown in a hipster loft and go to all the trendy places on Yelp. Well, tough shit. Real estate is a product of the wealth of who bids, and older people who have had more years of work to build up a savings have by far more buying power, so they will get the houses in the more desirable areas. Zoomers have to accept living farther away if they want their own house on the cheap.
Depends on how interested you are in earning your success. Seems the boomers had a significantly easier time in that regard
We also had a strong industrial base and you could get a well paying blue collar job in a factory and raise a family on that single income.
I'm kind of looking forward to Trump's industrialization plan. I doubt it will be as successful as he promises but if it is we could totally rebuild American capital and family capital.
Offshoring is the only reason why the dogshit US Dollar can still buy finished goods for cheap.