[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

One of the biggest issues that discussions of inequality ignore is generational issues. People view wealth as an individual thing. However, if you look at American society, probably the majority has been generational. Each generation worked and saved to better their children's lives.

An example of this is probably in immigrants. Many people came with practically nothing but he clothes on their back. They took whatever job they could find and worked like crazy and saved like crazy and pushed their children like crazy. Their children in turn started out better than their parents and worked and saved and pushed their children and their children did even better. After a few generations, the descendants of immigrants have entered the highest ranks of society.

What drives the "myth" of the American dream is not necessarily that I who started out with nothing will be well off. It's that through my hard work and their hard work my children will be better than me and my grandchildren and their children will be well off even though I started with nothing.

That version of the American dream has worked far more reliably than the individualistic model. Even once persecuted and discriminated against immigrant communities in the US have succeeded in this version of the American dream.

[sametmax]

I'm not sure the Y-generation would agree it worked for them.

The student loads have never been such a burden. The cost of housing skyrocketed. If they want to eat for the same price as their grand parents they need to eat junk food.

I mean: my grand parent could buy their own house while only one was working, and a job that didn't require any diploma.

But the flat screen prices are very cheap so they got that going for them.

[new_hackers]

There is truth to this, however there has also been major changes to how we live and the expectations.

"my grand parent could buy their own house while only one was working, and a job that didn't require any diploma"

Yes, but they probably couldn't buy a house anywhere in the world they wanted. The house size was probably much smaller than the sizes of today's suburban houses. I would argue that one could by a small, economical home in the midwest.

"If they want to eat for the same price as their grand parents they need to eat junk food."

Again, look at the diet lifestyle choices of Gen Y versus their grandparents. My grandparent (I'm a Gen Xer) told me stories of eating onions for a month because his parents were migrant workers and they worked picking onions when they were in season.

Even today, it is possible to eat simply (rice, beans, in-season vegetables and fruits) for a low-price. You won't be eating much meat, and you won't be eating "luxury" items. But that is very similar to how people ate in the 30's, 40's and early 50's.

[sametmax]

He was selling shoes. Their house has 4 bedrooms, 3 living rooms, 2 offices, a garden, a court, a garage, a basement, a 2 cellars, an attic, and 2 bathrooms.

And yes, not in a big city. But his job paying the house was not in a big city either.

While housing prices in is little town are indeed way lower than in most parts of the country, so are the wages.

I agree for the food though. If you have somebody to do the shopping to several shops and cook, you can get something similar. But today, both spouses work quite often.

Now I'm just back from the US, and the only decent provider of vegetables that match what I'm used to eat in France and group everything was wholefood. $4 for a salad is very expensive to me. Granted I'm not native to the country and only passing by so you have options that are cheaper I don't know about. Still. I never seen that price on a salad anywhere except Japan. And I travel a lot.

[garyfirestorm]

>$4 for a salad is very expensive to me

i would be extremely happy to eat a meal at $4. these days i end up spending >10$ on a meal, and I am not even living in a big city in US.

[sametmax]

Not the meal. The vegetable itself.

[troupe]

I think most people have no idea of what it was like living back in those time periods.

Yes, you could get a job back then without a diploma. You might be digging ditches or loading hay in 100-degree weather. I really haven't run across someone willing to work hard like that today who can't get a job somewhere.

[sametmax]

No, grandpa was selling shoes.

[troupe]

I had relatives that worked at a grocery store, but they did stuff like deliver 50-pound blocks of ice all around town.

I'm pretty confident that agriculture, mining, and other work similar to what I described represented a much larger portion of the workforce than shoe salesmen did.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

The American dream is about climbing from the bottom to the top, the idea that the 'real' American dream is working your ass off your entire life on the bottom rung so you can put your kid on the second rung and he can work his ass off his entire life to put his kid on the third rung and so on, always with the risk that one generation will slip and fall back down is total crap. It is antithetical to the idea of meritocracy.

[troupe]

Keep in mind that many of those immigrants were still doing a lot better in the US than they were where they came from. So they may "well off" in significant ways even if not compared to someone who was born here. And for some people, living past 35 is well off compared to their homeland.

[notspelledright]

I'm not entirely sure that this is correct. As an example, this recent article from the NYTimes looks at the economic status of black Americans and their children vs. white Americans and their children: [1]

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-c...