"From crippling income inequality to limitless government spying, modern American life has never fel - Polidicks

[QUOTE=catbarf;46597378]Compared to our own nation a hundred or even fifty years ago, we have it really, REALLY good.\.[/QUOTE] No we don't. Compared to 50 years ago families today have less wealth (adjusted for inflation) despite the fact that more families now have two wage earners. We actually worse off than we were 50 years ago pretty much. [url]http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/who-destroyed-the-economy-the-case-against-the-baby-boomers/263291/[/url]

[QUOTE=mecaguy03;46595973]Yea-no While there is all that shit, there is still a high level of progressivism with regards to things like homosexuality, and add on to that some pretty amazing advances in technology; life in the US is not too bad. Pretty sensationalist article.[/QUOTE] most of us here on the internet are likely lucky enough to be privileged enough to not be homeless and living far below the poverty line. for millions of americans, things are bad. And the real kicker is, yeah, you have your life and your comforts and your standard of living, but you are rapidly losing your democratic voice in a country like the US post Citizens United.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;46597465]Pretty sure Used Car Salesman has a bomb strapped to him that will go off if his discourse level ever drops below "furious rant."[/QUOTE] That sounds like a really bad movie. I want it.

[QUOTE=catbarf;46597378]Compared to everywhere outside the small upper crust that we call 'developed nations', we have it really, REALLY good. Compared to our own nation a hundred or even fifty years ago, we have it really, REALLY good. So with things being significantly, obviously better than they used to be in decades past, and with our standard of living still being leaps and bounds ahead of what the majority of the human population experiences, the most you can say is that A. things aren't as good as they could theoretically be, and B. things aren't quite the best of any nation. We have our problems, but honestly, after spending my childhood in the Middle East and Africa, this kind of thinking reeks of first-world problems.[/QUOTE] The wage has been relatively frozen since the late 70's, and the prices of most things have gone up as well as the cost of school, a gateway to upward mobility, has risen vastly in prices requiring people to either take advantage of debt, leans, or extreme working situations like 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46597491]most of us here on the internet are likely lucky enough to be privileged enough to not be homeless and living far below the poverty line. for millions of americans, things are bad. And the real kicker is, yeah, you have your life and your comforts and your standard of living, but you are rapidly losing your democratic voice in a country like the US post Citizens United.[/QUOTE] I honestly blame the people. If real and tangible corruption was there at voting process, I'd agree. But its low voting turn out.

[QUOTE=Swilly;46597514]I honestly blame the people. If real and tangible corruption was there at voting process, I'd agree. But its low voting turn out.[/QUOTE] it's really not that simple. gerrymandering districts into more favourable results has been a strategy for years and has payed off well. Citizens united basically guarantees a candidate will seek financial aid from companies for any political entity to actually effectively compete in the environment in this situation. Not just presidential, at every level. Even if turn out was higher, their limited selection of choices is the basis for the problem in many ways. Voter ID laws are also a troublesome idea as voting isn't a privledge like any thing else that requires a photo ID, it's a right, and is thus another form of voter limitation, again powered by money and lobbiests. If we take it a step further, we can see the judicial election process is also fraught with the some monetary concerns. If EVERY election at every level at every point in the government takes large sums of money that the average person can't finance themselves, on loan, or through campaigning, is going to take financial aid from larger companies. This could potentially be a neutral situation but it's hard to be sure that's the case at all. I really don't think things are going that great. In a brave new world way, sure, but I don't think there's longevity in the model of existence the US, and by extension, Canada, have become accustomed to.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46597470]No we don't. Compared to 50 years ago families today have less wealth (adjusted for inflation) despite the fact that more families now have two wage earners. We actually worse off than we were 50 years ago pretty much. [url]http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/who-destroyed-the-economy-the-case-against-the-baby-boomers/263291/[/url][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46597504]The wage has been relatively frozen since the late 70's, and the prices of most things have gone up as well as the cost of school, a gateway to upward mobility, has risen vastly in prices requiring people to either take advantage of debt, leans, or extreme working situations like 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet.[/QUOTE] We're not currently embroiled in massive nation-wide civil conflict, we're not stuck in a war killing thousands upon thousands of drafted servicemen per year, and we have advanced in technology by leaps and bounds. Even with the wealth adjustment, standards of living are universally higher now than fifty years ago- your dollar may be stretched thinner, but it goes further than before. Technologies we take for granted as essential parts of living, basic comforts like the refrigerator, air conditioning, television, have gone from moderate acceptance amongst the middle-class to basic essentials in every American home, and modern homes, cars, and other staples of American life are built to better standards for the same cost thanks to technological development. The measures of wealth versus inflation give you a good baseline for how income disparity has changed, but they don't take into account the changes in standards of living associated with those values of wealth, they're relative to the rest of society.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46597192]We're a developed nation, of course we can look at developing nations and say "oh man, it's totally not bad here" but when you start comparing us to other developed nations all of a sudden the reality is far more clear. [editline]28th November 2014[/editline] What sort of comparison is that? Of course we have clean water, tech, and some form of societal freedom. But name a country that's defined as "developed" that doesn't.. Why don't you look at the fact that our education system is pathetic, our society is rampant with racism, our infrastructure is crumbling around us, our politicians could give two fucks about what the common man wants, our corporations regularly fuck us and no one bats an eye at it. Yes we have clean water, but if that's all it takes to be "developed" then there are several villages in African nations that are "developed". Meanwhile the poor regularly get fucked in the US, Healthcare costs are through the roof, You pay taxes and you're getting nearly fuck all from it, you're paying for substandard education, crumbling infrastructure, and a MIC that couldn't give a fuck. On top of that you get to pay for lovely health insurance because the government could give two fucks if you're healthy.[/QUOTE] The point of this article (honestly more of an opinion piece) is that "modern American life has never felt so grim". Arguing that other developing countries have it better may be true (I don't feel like I know enough detailed knowledge about other cultures/countries to debate the point one way or another), but isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. The person's post that you were responding to was simply stating that at this moment in time, we have clean water on demand, better medical practices, better care for our poor, better technology available to more people for cheaper, and is objectively in a better state than it has been in the past unless you really like laissez-faire or having slaves. The real issue I feel we should be discussing here, if any issue, is the terrible terrible self-titled "article" in the op. Despite proclaiming that "We are starting to break down", and how "modern American life" has never felt so grim, it only really gives four or five facts. Only of those facts has a direct source, as well. I should also add that in nowhere in this article are any of the author's points related to past conditions, despite the headline very clearly making a comparison to the past. After that, the author just sort of rambles about anguish, and despair. Here are some quotes from the article: [I]"When I close my eyes, I see a great ogre with gold coins spilling from his pockets and pollution spewing from his maw lurching toward me with increasing speed. I don’t know how to stop him."[/I] [I]"We are starting to break down."[/I] [I]"In the act of writing to myself and to you, I am reminded that we are bound, and that even if a dark age is looming, we can still pass the light between us. I can’t fool myself to think that the ogre is not coming — but walking to meet him together is much better than standing alone."[/I] [B][I]This[/I][/B] is not reporting. Despite the cheesy ending about how talking about our feelings will make us feel better, this is fearmongering. And frankly, that's offensive.

You know what was grim? The early days of the United States, when we were a newly developed country, and we weren't so sure of our country's future. You know what was grim? The 1860s, when our country was in the middle of a Civil War, and we weren't sure if we could survive as a single country. You know what was [I]grim[/I]? The flu pandemic of 1918, which killed more than 50 million people around the world, including the United States. THIS, in the year 2014, is NOT FUCKING GRIM, AT ALL.

Bernie.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46597620]You're still comparing developed nations to developing nations. You're literally comparing apples to oranges.[/QUOTE] No, if you actually read the post that you apparently skimmed in the thirty seconds between when I posted it and you replied, I'm comparing American standards of living today to American standards of living fifty years ago to explain why the demonstrably lower median wealth does not necessarily reflect a reduction in standards of living. But regardless, yes, I am comparing developed nations to developing ones. Because to leave developing nations out of the comparison and ignore the fact that you, by living in the first world, already have it far better than the vast majority of the human population, is like a rich guy complaining that other rich people have been getting richer faster than he has. It may be true, it's worth discussing, but to say that it's a [i]bad[/i] state to be in is ridiculous.

Are we going to have another discussion about privilege in here soon?

[QUOTE=catbarf;46597610]We're not currently embroiled in massive nation-wide civil conflict, we're not stuck in a war killing thousands upon thousands of drafted servicemen per year, and we have advanced in technology by leaps and bounds. Even with the wealth adjustment, standards of living are universally higher now than fifty years ago- your dollar may be stretched thinner, but it goes further than before. Technologies we take for granted as essential parts of living, basic comforts like the refrigerator, air conditioning, television, have gone from moderate acceptance amongst the middle-class to basic essentials in every American home, and modern homes, cars, and other staples of American life are built to better standards for the same cost thanks to technological development.The measures of wealth versus inflation give you a good baseline for how income disparity has changed, but they don't take into account the changes in standards of living associated with those values of wealth, they're relative to the rest of society.[/QUOTE] All those things you just listed don't necessarily make your life better, infact half of them (television, fridges, cars) were also extremely common 50 years ago as well. There's a huge debate whether technological advances that make our life easier (ie computers) are actually making us happier. It's not so easy to say "we have more things therefore we should be happier" so you can't necessarily say that we are better off than we were before. It's true we are better of medically, and living longer, but are we living happier? Infact, there are studies showing that we aren't happier at all. [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/15/us-happiness-usa-idUSL1550309820070615[/url] Either way, Efficiency has shot way up since then, but most workers fail to see any benefits of this. A lot of people have been working longer hours, working hard to save for retirement and pay off things like student debt. Houses back 50 years ago were also cheaper, the entire idea behind having less effective wealth actually means we have less than before, even though it appears we have more "things." it now takes several times longer on a moderate wage to buy a house but holy shit I can have another fucking tablet for 50 bucks. Not only that but Income inequality has risen a lot, even though technological improvements should theoretically be making us all better off. To be honest though, I'm not saying we are worse off than we were 50 years ago, Infact I think we are living in a great age, but I wouldn't say the modern day naysayers who complain about things like income inequality are off the mark. Don't be so quick to call people out for wanting things to be better, and don't just assume that because we have more "things" now that we should stop trying to make things better.

Now you see, there is this man named Bernie Sanders and the Green party

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46597562]it's really not that simple. gerrymandering districts into more favourable results has been a strategy for years and has payed off well. Citizens united basically guarantees a candidate will seek financial aid from companies for any political entity to actually effectively compete in the environment in this situation. Not just presidential, at every level. Even if turn out was higher, their limited selection of choices is the basis for the problem in many ways. Voter ID laws are also a troublesome idea as voting isn't a privledge like any thing else that requires a photo ID, it's a right, and is thus another form of voter limitation, again powered by money and lobbiests. If we take it a step further, we can see the judicial election process is also fraught with the some monetary concerns. If EVERY election at every level at every point in the government takes large sums of money that the average person can't finance themselves, on loan, or through campaigning, is going to take financial aid from larger companies. This could potentially be a neutral situation but it's hard to be sure that's the case at all. I really don't think things are going that great. In a brave new world way, sure, but I don't think there's longevity in the model of existence the US, and by extension, Canada, have become accustomed to.[/QUOTE] There is a lot of fuck ups in the system and I won't deny this, but you have to pause, sit back and remember millenials, those very fair and progressive peoples of our generation, completely outnumber X and Babyboomers. There's literally no excuse if we started shaking that weight.

even though its only an opinion piece its sort of true, unfortunatly the people's voice did get heard, the people have been convinced that their corporate overlords will be nice and helpful if we let the shackles of big gob'ment fall, only they'll rip out our entrails and move to china

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;46597631]You know what was grim? The early days of the United States, when we were a newly developed country, and we weren't so sure of our country's future. You know what was grim? The 1860s, when our country was in the middle of a Civil War, and we weren't sure if we could survive as a single country. You know what was [I]grim[/I]? The flu pandemic of 1918, which killed more than 50 million people around the world, including the United States. THIS, in the year 2014, is NOT FUCKING GRIM, AT ALL.[/QUOTE] You're really just trivializing the issue. While the article is a bit dumb, it does point out a lot of valid issues. The income gap is huge - The majority of Americans don't make much. Many are below the poverty line. That being said homelessness is an issue, along with children starving in America. A lot of these issues get very little coverage but they're real problems plaguing America. Homeless service men/women make up a large amount of homeless people as well. You also got the problem that majority of Americans are paying more taxes then the small percent that makes millions/billions of dollars. Then you compound the issue with the late 2000's bank crisis/debt/bail outs. Majority of Americans have ZERO faith in their government - voter turn out, low approval rates, and the fact that militias (some even have been labeled as home grown terrorists) have reach high levels go to show that. These are all major issues, if you look at the overall outlook and feel in America it is "GRIM." You can compare shit like you did, but it doesn't prove anything, just that you lack any real understanding of what is going on.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46597620]You're still comparing developed nations to developing nations. You're literally comparing apples to oranges.[/QUOTE] not at all? what the hell do you think the difference is, beyond the standards?

[QUOTE=catbarf;46597656]No, if you actually read the post that you apparently skimmed in the thirty seconds between when I posted it and you replied, I'm comparing American standards of living today to American standards of living fifty years ago to explain why the demonstrably lower median wealth does not necessarily reflect a reduction in standards of living. But regardless, yes, I am comparing developed nations to developing ones. Because to leave developing nations out of the comparison and ignore the fact that you, by living in the first world, already have it far better than the vast majority of the human population, is like a rich guy complaining that other rich people have been getting richer faster than he has. It may be true, it's worth discussing, but to say that it's a [i]bad[/i] state to be in is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] You are right in saying that we currently have it fantastic relative to the rest of the world but that shouldn't be used to deflect the issues brought up here. Income inequality is currently terrible and appears to be getting worse, and the average person is rapidly losing any political voice they had to begin with, which in my uninformed opinion is basically zero anyway. If there's one thing I've observed about the US government, it's that they're exceptional at making people believe we actually have a political choice. Sure, we can vote for the people who will 'lead' us, but it makes no difference when these people are directly in the pocket of major corporations. Anything that goes against their desire will be entirely ignored, and anything that coincides with their desires will just be convenience for both the people and large corporations. Of course running a country is a lot more nebulous than this, and not all issues will be in the interests of corporations, likewise for the common person. However, when it comes to income inequality or anything onvolving both parties, you can bet that the Government is going to listen to the highest bidder, if the past is anything to go by. Our standard of living and security are the finest of humanity's existence. Now we get to decide if it's worth it.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46597562] Citizens united basically guarantees a [B]candidate will seek financial aid from companies for any political entity[/B] to actually effectively compete in the environment in this situation. Not just presidential, at every level. Even if turn out was higher, their limited selection of choices is the basis for the problem in many ways. [/QUOTE] That's one reason for wich the financing of political parties from state budget is actually an enticing ideea being discussed in europe, and I think it's already applied in some countries. [editline]29th November 2014[/editline] But lobbying is also present in Brussels so there's that...

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46598208]Uh. The standards are pretty much the critical argument. Of course the US has clean water, it has since the early 1900's, why would it stop having clean water? Comparing the US to Nigeria is literally setting up the easy argument of "well we're better than them", when a better comparison would be the US and, for example, Sweden, or Norway, or the UK, or Germany.[/quote] Saying it's a relatively unfair comparison I get, saying it's "literally comparing apples to oranges" is silly. Yes, the US might be on a whole other level when you compare it to countries like Nigeria, but acting like you can't compare it to anything that's not one of the top developed nations is borderline delusional. There are plenty of developing nations that are more than comparable to the states.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;46600703]There are plenty of developing nations that are more than comparable to the states.[/QUOTE] doesn't that just kind of prove the point that the U.S. has some serious problems if we're comparable to developing nations?

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;46600734]doesn't that just kind of prove the point that the U.S. has some serious problems if we're comparable to developing nations?[/QUOTE] yes? i never implied the opposite?

Of all the things that I can think of that are wrong in this country, the worst one is the chronic tendency of the American people to look at the current state of affairs and say "Well, it could be worse" than to ask "What can we do to make it better?"

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;46601061]yes? i never implied the opposite?[/QUOTE] I don't think we're quite THAT bad. I don't have tons of experience with developing countries but I can tell you that I would rather live in America than I would Vietnam. Vietnam is a great country, but sometimes the water can get ants in it or make you sick. Not all places have A/C so it can be hotter than hell during the summer and there is no government service to get rid of mosquitoes like we have here in Florida. I thought Vietnam was one of the upper-tier developing nations and I think any sane person would rather live in the US than there. Maybe you have some life experience we don't know about, have you ever lived in a developing country? Edit: Just for the record though it's a great country to visit I highly recommend.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46597754]Of course we're better than we were 50 years ago, but so is everyone else, and they're BETTER than we are. You can't compare life in America to life in Nigeria, trying to do so is trivial. Life in America can only be compared to other first world societies. Don't sit there and trivialize the fact that we're worse off than other developed nations by saying "OH BUT WE'RE BETTER THAN AFRICAN SHITHOLES" great, we've BEEN better than African shit holes. We're SIGNIFICANTLY better than those African shitholes, but people REGULARLY use this as an excuse to blow off very valid complaints, like "oh hey, income inequality is a really bad thing" "YEA BUT IT'S WORSE IN AFRICA". Real strong argument.[/QUOTE] Nobody is saying these problems are insignificant or don't matter because it's worse in Africa. What I and others are saying is that there's a difference between 'we have problems other developed nations don't have' and 'we have lots of problems, our situation is grim, things have never been this bad for us' which the article is saying and which is totally false. 'Life in the US is terrible' is objectively wrong when it's still better than what the majority of the rest of the world experiences. 'Life in the US is worse than it's ever been', as the article is asserting, is also objectively wrong when we're not reeling from World Wars or going through the Depression or working eighty-hour work weeks from the age of ten to keep the factories staffed. 'Life in the US is not as good as it is in some of the other upper-echelon countries despite still being better than most countries on Earth, and that makes some people sad' is accurate. It's also pretty weak, as far as things to complain about go. Again, what you're doing is like a rich guy complaining about how he's never felt so poor, and when it's pointed out that he's not only [I]still rich[/I] but also richer than he was ten years ago, him saying: 'Of course I'm richer than I was ten years ago, but so are all my rich friends, and they're RICHER than I am. You can't compare my life to that of poor people, trying to do so is trivial. Life for a rich person like me can only be compared to other rich people.' Which is utter horseshit. You can still have problems, you can talk about the relative issues we have, and the existence of Africa doesn't invalidate any complaints you might have, but before you go spouting off about how terrible things are and how 'grim' American life has become you need to keep some perspective. You don't need to try to seriously claim that life in America is worse than it's ever been to say that we have problems, and talk about ways to fix them.

I don't think anyone in this thread or even the author of the article intended to come across quite as pessimistic as you read it as. Maybe the author, but that's just sensationalism, and we're all aware of that

[snipped because i came across as very mean and i feel bad now]