1453
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

People see all this and then continue worshiping the state, promoting its fiat paper covered in slavemasters, and actively participating in its planetary destruction. The whole system is a scam. It's completely obvious.

It's ok if people want to criticize crypto because it's also garbage capitalism. But that's nothing compared to what the state is doing...

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] XiozTzu@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago

If you think we are not better off now than in the 70s, you have selective amnesia or possibly brain damage.

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 5 points 6 days ago

The world of Bladerunner has flying cars, androids, space settlements, holographic projections. Advancement is not the same as "better off", especially if you're in the groups that see all of it but can't take part in any improvements. As a white male from the 70s (a demographic that would benefit far more than others then and now) things are both better and worse, depending on what you look at. In the subjects the meme touches, it's worse for most everyone but the wealthy. If you look around and don't see it, then you don't have brain damage, you're just isolated in your own shiny world (by choice or not).

load more comments (31 replies)
[-] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago

Libertarian trash. It literally quotes their god Hayek at the end.

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

Only some of it is libertarian trash. The majority of those graphs could be equally interpreted as the need to move towards a more socialist policy.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)

The only thing I disagree with in this post is using the average cost of an Ivy League education. If they're comparing averages, either use all higher education or state universities.

[-] Kanda@reddthat.com 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Doesn't the quotes just ruin his whole thing? You either say "so much for progress" or something like "thanks for the 'progress'". 'So much for "progress" ' feels like a double negative

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 7 points 6 days ago

This is surely not the reason here, but at least cars have gotten a lot more complex, and the possibilities of health care have also increased a lot. So not all of this increase goes into rich people's pockets. But likely still quite some.

[-] booly@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago

I would take cars off the original post. Cars are basically cheaper now today than in 1971.

The average car in 1970 was 5.6 years old. By 2022, the average age stretched up to 12 years old. Machine parts are being built to tighter tolerances, and the lubricants and paints and other coatings that protect against corrosion mean that cars are expected to last to around 200,000 miles, rather than the 100,000 miles that were normal up through most of the 80's.

In other words, that new car in 1971 would be expected to last half as long as the new car in 2024. And the robust used car market allows for people to choose pretty much any model of the last 20 years, when the typical buyer in 1971 didn't have that option.

Not to mention, today's cars are far faster and more fuel efficient than the cars of the 60's and 70's. A 2023 Prius does 0-60 in 7.1 seconds and gets 57 mpg. That's around sports car performance in the 1970s.

All the while, the industry has standardized catalytic converters, seat belts, airbags, automatic transmissions, air conditioning, power steering, power windows, power locks, etc.

And there's more to come, too. Electrification may make cars even cheaper, including/especially with maintenance and fuel.

Health care, though, no, that should stay in the original post. Yes there are new procedures and treatments that weren't available in 1970, but a lot of the procedures and treatments that have been around that long have become unreasonably expensive, from regular saline IVs to bandages to insulin to an overnight stay in a hospital. So the overall costs are still way up, even when accounting for the quality differences.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

What good is all that extra durability if all the cost savings are swallowed up by a much higher purchase price? We can always make things last longer; that doesn't mean its worth it. Financially, a $40k car that lasts twenty years is actually worse than two $20k cars that last ten years each. With the two $20k cars, I can spend half as much at today and invest the other half. In ten years time, that $20k will likely have grown enough to buy a whole new $20k car. And it will have newer features. And that's less assets that I'm driving around all day just waiting to get wrapped around a tree.

And it gets even worse when you consider insurance and maintenance. When cars are relatively disposable, you don't need to bother getting full coverage policies on them. If you get in a wreck, oh well, that's life, but you can afford to replace it. Few people have insurance plans on their bicycle or clothing for that reason. But when a car is so expensive that it represents a substantial chunk of your financial world, well then it being wrecked is as ruinous as your house burning down. You have to pay some third party for insurance, and the profit margin and admin costs they will demand. Averaged out, every insurance policy you have to buy is a losing game. You lose money every time you buy insurance, on average. The more things you have to insure, the poorer you are.

Automakers have realized that cars are more durable, and they have raised their prices to compensate. We as citizens don't actually receive any of the benefit of increased car durability, as the automakers have simply swallowed it all with price increases.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] kn0wmad1c@programming.dev 5 points 6 days ago

55k sounds really low for a family income. Is that per person?

[-] Grabthar@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago

Probably worse than you think. In 1971, the family income was more often than not achieved by one person working. Now it's usually two.

Federal minimum wage is $15,080 assuming you work 40 hours a week and never get sick or take time off.

$55,000 is two people working $13.22 or a single person working $26.44

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
1453 points (100.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

6093 readers
2150 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS