[mjevans]

While I think the infographics of that article are pretty accurate, I believe that this article doesn't benefit from the recent focus on income inequality and the massive schism of the 1% of the 1% from the other 99.99% of the population.

I agree that expectations are a little unrealistic, particularly with anyone born after the early 90s, but also for many born after the late 70s.

However the quality of life, slack time, and slack resources for happiness that other generations did experience during periods of prosperity are measurably lacking today.

It is not unrealistic to feel unhappy about this; but what continues to amaze me is how ignorantly and emotionally many vote. Blatantly ignoring candidates who's platforms are arguably better able to deliver successful change in favor of candidates who sell them an easy bubble of illusions.

[PeachPlum]

Platforms offering change are abundant.

Platforms that delivered change not so.

I'm curious as to how you are so sure you can distinguish illusion.

[_Tev]

You can easily distinguish what is clearly an illusion or lie that is not going to work.

But you're right that recognizing which platform will actually work is very hard.

[PeachPlum]

When it comes to economics one can find a plausable theory from a Nobel Prize winner to fit numerous competing platforms.

And social science isn't as solid as that.

I would say there are more equivocal problems than unequivocal and society looks for a leader to make gut feeling decisions. The only discriminator is the success of previous gut feeling decisions or even "it went wrong but it sounded good".