[knowaveragejoe]

> Right the baby boomers who could work flipping burgers and put themselves through college and buy a house at 22 really did poorly

Yes! You, living in the modern world, would never tolerate the quality of housing, automobiles, education, and essentially everything else that was "in reach" of someone flipping burgers at 22 in this fabled period of history.

What they had was shit, and you'd quickly be backpedaling on this opinion if you ever had to live with it yourself.

You are immeasurably better off than your parents. The array of amenities, options & opportunity in front at this very moment is something people in this mythical period you're describing could not even fathom.

> "But the stock market is great!" - for the top 10% of us with stocks, awesome. We left a shitload of people in the dust. Millennials have what 1/3 of the wealth boomers did by the same age? But if we all gave more... Trust us it's better...

"Top 10% of us with stocks" - really? Anyone with any kind of retirement plan is exposed to the stock market. But the kicker is I wasn't even talking about the stock market when I say the US economy is booming & dynamic!

I'm not sure what you mean by "if we all gave more". Honestly your(and the other person's) replies reek of young, terminally online talking points, not anything based on data or empirical study.

[analognoise]

...you mean the "fabled period" where 1 income could support a family of 4 and nobody needed the stock market because they had pension plans?

Yeah some myth. It wasn't long ago Homer Simpson wasn't considered "aspirational".

You're so into your text books you've lost sight of reality.

Why do you think the suicide rates for men are so much higher - and, nightmarishly enough, are increasing for children?

Because if you enforce some kind of bullshit about the world being flat, a few people win and you get better TVs - and MOST PEOPLE LOSE.

Homer Simpson is aspirational. That's how far the truth of "globalist" policies have gone. We got... Cheaper shit? Not worth it. At all.

Also: "Because the housing market is not allowed to function as it should, through a slew of NIMBYist policies that cover virtually the entire country. In most parts of the country it is illegal to build anything but a single-family detached house."

You mean the standard house of our parents and grandparents? I thought you said we just "wouldn't accept" the quality of those dwellings? Is it housing policy, or are we being told we...wouldn't live there anyway?

Let's face it. Shit is much worse now. The current generation isn't even going to live as long! - the fastest growing category is "deaths of despair".

Why do you think the birth rate is declining? It's too expensive to even have kids! What kind of fucked up dystopia are you going for???

[knowaveragejoe]

> Let's face it. Shit is much worse now.

Respectfully, there is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. The homer simpson bit made me laugh though - in the US, Homer isn't seen as aspirational at all. Maybe you mean the Kardashians?

Still, the world is objectively better by any metric you'd care to use. You can find some exceptions as long as you don't control for historical or geopolitical context. If I had to guess, you're young and surrounded by populism and outrage porn on the internet - /r/latestagecapitalism, /r/aboringdystopia, rose twitter, so on, and so your opinion stems from being engrossed in that.

I will say that when I was younger(late teens/early 20s) I had a very similar sentiment as yours, insofar that the world's woes are easily understood and would be solved if it weren't for special interests who benefit from the way things are. The issue is you extrapolate way too far from this, and the solutions you arrive at are often regressive(and in some cases even already exist and contribute to the very problems you're trying to solve).