• BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Y’know, the only reason the Democrats struggle to win at all is that sometime in the post-Nixon era they collectively decided to stop standing up for labor’s buying power. When they did this, (which helped them a lot in terms of their ability to get corporate donors to finance their elections), it meant that working people would go from having 1 party represent labor to 0 parties doing that.

    In the 50s an entry-level job that a high-school graduate could get would support a family, buy a home and a couple of cars, and pay out a retirement. Today, that job won’t even pay for an apartment without roommates.

    That right there is the whole reason the GOP is a viable political party at the federal level- with both parties beholden to corporate donors, winning elections is more or less a matter of spending money on campaign ads attacking the other party because neither party has to do anything that voters want

    • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      As things stand right now, the GOP’s platform is “let’s pick a scapegoat to exhume the lower classes’ frustrations”, while the Democrats’ is “let’s not do that”. It’s no wonder why the Dems can only garner around ~27% of all elegible votes (vs the Republicans’ ~25%), most of their voters don’t particularly like their politicians nor their policies, they just don’t want to be governed by fucking crazies.

      • Cabrio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately progress is making and eating gradually less shitty sandwiches until all of humanity individually decide we don’t like the taste of shit.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most Dems do like their representatives and their policies and that’s why those representatives win primaries

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In the 50s an entry-level job that a high-school graduate could get would support a family, buy a home and a couple of cars, and pay out a retirement.

      While I agree with the general thrust that more needs to be done for the average worker, your comparison of these times completely falls on its face if you speak to anyone with firsthand experience. It shouldn’t be used because it is just noise, not relevant to the world we live in.

      My dad grew up in the 50s and lives with me, due to his age/health. Here’s a mix of his take and current data:

      Homes have tripled in size on average. Providing for a family involves machines that take on 16 hours per day of household chores, which are expensive and taken for granted. Electricity and television, to say nothing of the internet, are taken for granted. Cellular phones are taken for granted.

      6 children would live in a 3 bedroom house - I know this because this is how my uncles grew up in the 50s. The vast majority of people did not have a “couple of cars.” They had one car and the entire family packed into it without seatbelts.

      You can absolutely live like it’s the 50s right now. Cancel your cable, internet, and phone. Do not own a dishwasher, wash your laundry by hand, and only bulk-buy groceries in the forms of cereal grains, meat, eggs, and vegetables. Buy nothing pre-made. Mend your own clothes. Cook everything from scratch. Don’t have air conditioning.

      If this sounds like a poor, miserable existence, it’s because almost everyone lives a standard of living unimaginable in the 50s except in science fiction, and that standard is expensive.

      That’s why we should help people - because our standard of living rose and we no longer see the 50s as acceptable, not because tradwives and nuclear families made the world safe for one white guy to provide for his family. We are the richest country in the world and our standard of living should be a cudgel we wield in soft diplomacy.

      As my dad said when I read him this post: “this going back to the past shit is about the stupidest shit in the world.”

      • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do not own a dishwasher, wash your laundry by hand

        this ends up costing more where I live - its actually cheaper to run a dishwasher daily.

        source: I own a dishwasher and my water bill is only like $30 - $40 in the US.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry but I do all of that and it’s not any better at all. No washer/dryer, no washing machine, I live in a fucking garage and pay more rent than anyone in the 50s paid mortgage.

        Houses that are glorified sheds in flood zones in the worst parts of town go for 300k+. I’m not even entry level and I can’t afford the cheapest garbage excuse for a house out here without becoming house poor. I can’t even “move where it’s cheaper” because WFH people did and now it’s not cheaper. The areas that are truly cheap, are so because there’s no work to be had around them. Can’t appreciate the low cost of an area when your unemployed.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I specifically said it wasn’t better. That’s what “massively increased standard of living” implies.

          It is cheaper though, which is why you do it. I agree it sucks.

          That we should make it easier to achieve a massively better life than the 50s is the intent of the post you are replying to.

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I absolutely agree. I think the “smaller houses” bit just sent me off on a rant because I keep hearing that argument as a way to dismiss current housing price issues, but it’s just not the reality I see when I look at glorified sheds selling for 300k.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well there’s also a dramatic under-supply of housing as well.

              A tripling in housing cost resulting in average houses costing $80k or so, which would approximately align with price increase/sqft would be much more tenable for people.

              Still, it’s a higher standard of living and more expensive though, and should be taken into account when looking to provide the right economic conditions for people. That’s why I brought that up.

              Bottom line is, as always, fuck NIMBYism and build more. Big houses, small houses, multi-family housing, all of it.