One former teacher's opinion/testimony on teaching Gen Z

[Zorba]

Not really. UBI means food/shelter/clothing/healthcare are already paid for before you earn a cent. One income would be enough for better food/clothes/shelter and reasonable entertainment. Dual income would be enough to early retire to a life of luxury. As it should be. All our productivity is being stolen by people who couldn't spend all the money they already have if they tried, and we continue to allow them to do it. Half our population literally helps enable them to do it more every time they vote.

What I meant is, people would just grow their standard of living to meet the new normal and still bitch about how you can't get by on one income.

UBI would be great for lower income and single income people. But the families that are currently doing fine on two salaries would likely just grow their expectations.

ETA: not bashing UBI just saying people aren't all of a sudden going back two single income houses because of it.

 

[dank69]

What I meant is, people would just grow their standard of living to meet the new normal and still bitch about how you can't get by on one income.

UBI would be great for lower income and single income people. But the families that are currently doing fine on two salaries would likely just grow their expectations.

We should all be growing our expectations. 4-day, 32-hour work weeks with $25 minimum wage, 8 weeks of vacation, one year paid parental leave and free tuition on top of UBI and UHC. We can pay for it all but instead are tricked into letting billionaires hoard all the cash to the point that putting yachts inside other yachts doesn't even make a dent.

 

[MrSquished]

Then GO dude. Quit complaining, and enjoy your taxes buttercup.

Just because a country doesn't have YOUR ideal, doesn't mean it doesn't have other people's ideal.

You're living in a life of utopia that doesn't exist, where YOU have all the CORRECT ideas, and everyone else is wrong - without ever considering that you are wrong.

View attachment 64377

View attachment 64378

Only the worst ignoramuses I have seen online say leave the country if you don't like it. Is that what we should have told people when there was slavery? Or told people when women couldn't vote? Or told people when African Americans had no civil rights? Or when gays had no rights? Or when workers had no rights?

If you had a home you liked and loved living in and the roof leaked are you going to tell someone well just fucking move, no you try to fix it. This country is broken, there is a lot to love especially in the most sane parts of the country. I'm down with fixing it if possible.

Anybody who says just leave the country is the worst of the worst. What they should do is vote for their state to secede. Especially in Texas, and take the rest of the deep south with you.

 

[Zorba]

We should all be growing our expectations. 4-day, 32-hour work weeks with $25 minimum wage, 8 weeks of vacation, one year paid parental leave and free tuition on top of UBI and UHC. We can pay for it all but instead are tricked into letting billionaires hoard all the cash to the point that putting yachts inside other yachts doesn't even make a dent.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just the original prompt of this tangent that we need to go back to when a single income was enough. We are already there for most people making median income, if they wanted to live like it was 1950.

But as family incomes grew, so did expectations.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just the original prompt of this tangent that we need to go back to when a single income was enough. We are already there for most people making median income, if they wanted to live like it was 1950.

But as family incomes grew, so did expectations.

Entitlements grew, you mean.

People are now ENTITLED to a 2-bedroom apartment, not sharing a 4-bedroom with others.

People are now ENTITLED to a smartphone with 4G+ service

People are now ENTITLED to high-speed internet, etc, etc, the list goes on and on.

 

[dank69]

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just the original prompt of this tangent that we need to go back to when a single income was enough. We are already there for most people making median income, if they wanted to live like it was 1950.

But as family incomes grew, so did expectations.

What is median these days? $32-33K? At most? That isn't enough to live like 1950. 1950 median was $3300? Adjusted that is $40K? Then average house price was less than $90K adjusted. Compare those with today and were are way behind on both fronts. So no, we are not already there.

 

[sandorski]

I wonder if different Teaching methods are needed to teach different Personality types. Also, whether we can use them without turning into Gattaca?

 

[MrSquished]

What is median these days? $32-33K? At most? That isn't enough to live like 1950. 1950 median was $3300? Adjusted that is $40K? Then average house price was less than $90K adjusted. Compare those with today and were are way behind on both fronts. So no, we are not already there.

Wealth inequality has grown, salaries for the non-wealthy have stagnated, housing prices have risen astronomically, health care costs have exploded a lot of things are happening that are making things too expensive. Conservatives like that fool from Texas think it's only entitlement and they don't take any other economic factors into account. It's always a lazy new generation or just entitled people. They never look at actual data and numbers to see how unfair the American system has become.

In fact they tell you to leave the country if you even want to do anything about it. That is how intellectually dishonest these people are and show a complete lack of critical thinking skills out of sheer willful ignorance

 

[snoopy7548]

 

[Torn Mind]

Entitlements grew, you mean.

People are now ENTITLED to a 2-bedroom apartment, not sharing a 4-bedroom with others.

People are now ENTITLED to a smartphone with 4G+ service

People are now ENTITLED to high-speed internet, etc, etc, the list goes on and on.

Already here.
Eh, Lifeline is all about accessibility. If shit happens and you need to look something up so you're aren't charged through the moon or go on the wrong bus, that's what it can be used for. And Uber/Lyft. landlines are toast these days, payphones don't exist. The savings overall for having a smartphone with unlimited talk/text/4.5 data would probably come out to about $300 based on the pricing at cheaper MVNOs. A lift, but not enough to not work at all. Government seeks to exploit and subjugate, and providing phones is one of the ways to keep the tyrannical and predatory nature of government in check and to make them spend money well.

Internet is also something government should be obligated to provide because government and other services are SYTEMICALLY AGEIST AND RACIST(even blue locales) against those who are not internet-competent(like my mom). My experience is that ain't nobody wants to tell people to the federal government website to submit discrimination complaints to the office of civil rights. Or Montgomery County publishes a handbook of transportation options for low-income or elderly individuals. Oh, but if you or don't have someone looking deep online on their official government website, chances are people are not calling 311 simply because they don't know these options exist(probably to protect the organizations from being overwhelmed and losing money.)

As long I meet the requirements, I AM eligible, and am using one.

Now, departments of social services...now that where the bullshit is. This where the bourgeois and above basically are hair trigger sensitive and discriminating against lower income folks who cannot afford to arm themselves with babysitters and daycare. But they're seeking any opening of "abuse" so then they can seize control of the entitlements the elderly or children are entitled to. Social workers are a special breed of non-criminal evil.

 

[Zorba]

What is median these days? $32-33K? At most? That isn't enough to live like 1950. 1950 median was $3300? Adjusted that is $40K? Then average house price was less than $90K adjusted. Compare those with today and were are way behind on both fronts. So no, we are not already there.

Yeah, I was thinking median household. Which I think is in the 60s. Still most people with a decent professional job could live like the 1950s if they wanted. Obviously not people making minimum wage, or nowadays many blue collar workers.

 

[Captante]

It's important to maintain perspective... although America is in no way the "greatest" country on earth anymore (if it ever was!) it's a long way from the worst one either.

Unfortunately that backwards compliment is about as positive a spin on my country as I've got halfway through 2022.

"Come to America.... we don't TOTALLY suck!" 🙄 😉

 

[pmv]

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just the original prompt of this tangent that we need to go back to when a single income was enough. We are already there for most people making median income, if they wanted to live like it was 1950.

But as family incomes grew, so did expectations.

A couple on a single-income (and I don't see any reason to assume that would be the man's income) would be competing for houses with all the dual-income couples. The price of housing doesn't follow the same logic as the price of most goods or services, because the supply is so inelastic.

 

[pmv]

How about you take your attitude over to P&N. Yeah, you won't do that because the people there that actually understand economics beyond Fox Noise soundbites will hand you your ass as usual.

That's exactly what's just happened here (in UK). Inflation has started to rocket, and various Ministers, plus the governor of the bank of England, immediately piped up calling for workers not to ask for higher-wages to cope with it, in order not to trigger an inflationary spiral (didn't work, the country is now seeing a wave of strikes).

It's notable that none of these guys made an equivalent appeal to corporations not to increase pirces for the same reason. The appeals for 'restraint' are only ever directed at one side of the problem (probably they are equally futile whichever side they are directed at, but still...)

 

[pmv]

lol where are you getting this notion that there is this rampant growing group of people that fuck around, but are also in committed relationships worthy of sharing a home together?

I mean, I'm sure some examples exist, but it's by no means some kind of growing trend. Just like anything else they either eventually get married or break off.

I don't understand what odd tangent you are going of on here. The point is just that the issue can be summed up by "selection effects". Those who choose to get married tend to be those who have a higher degree of commitment to raising a traditional family in the first place.

The other thing is in the old days couples would stay together because, at least for the woman, there was no choice. Didn't mean the relationship was a good one, though, or that the children got a supportive family home.

 

[Zorba]

A couple on a single-income (and I don't see any reason to assume that would be the man's income) would be competing for houses with all the dual-income couples. The price of housing doesn't follow the same logic as the price of most goods or services, because the supply is so inelastic.

Yeah, and if you are willing to buy a small house on the edge of the city, it's possible to get one on one decent income in the US, just like in the 1950s. No you can't get a McMansion in heart of the city. My real point is people have grown their expectations for standard of living to match multiple incomes. We have far more bullshit than we did in 1955.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I don't understand what odd tangent you are going of on here. The point is just that the issue can be summed up by "selection effects". Those who choose to get married tend to be those who have a higher degree of commitment to raising a traditional family in the first place.

The other thing is in the old days couples would stay together because, at least for the woman, there was no choice. Didn't mean the relationship was a good one, though, or that the children got a supportive family home.

lol that isn't how things work in life. You can't just take moronic statements from feminist groups and just toss it as a blanket on a very important topic.

So we went from a single motherhood rate of near 0 to ~40% today, and your logic and reasoning is to just say those 40% were always in bad relationships they just didn't feel empowered to do anything?

Don't feel compelled to raise facts when you make wild accusations like that or anything.

 

[pmv]

lol that isn't how things work in life. You can't just take moronic statements from feminist groups and just toss it as a blanket on a very important topic.

So we went from a single motherhood rate of near 0 to ~40% today, and your logic and reasoning is to just say those 40% were always in bad relationships they just didn't feel empowered to do anything?

Don't feel compelled to raise facts when you make wild accusations like that or anything.

Talking of "raising facts", where's the source of your claim that 40% of US mothers are now single mothers? Only figures I can find state 23% of US children live in single parent households (about the same as here in the UK). (The proportion of single _mothers_ would be lower than that).

So where do you get this 40% figure from? Seeing as you are so keen on 'facts'.

And clearly you don't know much about the world and haven't met many people, particularly older people, or read much history, or you'd be well aware a lot of relationships in the past were deeply unhappy ones, but continued because there was no other option (living together outside of marriage was far from unknown even in the 19th century, incidentally - marriage has waxed and waned in popularity over time, there wasn't a golden age in the past when every couple got married). Why do you think divorce became easier in the first place?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Talking of "raising facts", where's the source of your claim that 40% of US mothers are now single mothers? Only figures I can find state 23% of US children live in single parent households (about the same as here in the UK). (The proportion of single _mothers_ would be lower than that).

So where do you get this 40% figure from? Seeing as you are so keen on 'facts'.

Really? Seems like a very easy thing to google....

And clearly you don't know much about the world and haven't met many people, particularly older people, or read much history, or you'd be well aware a lot of relationships in the past were deeply unhappy ones, but continued because there was no other option (living together outside of marriage was far from unknown even in the 19th century, incidentally - marriage has waxed and waned in popularity over time, there wasn't a golden age in the past when every couple got married). Why do you think divorce became easier in the first place?

Re-read my post broceritops. In no way am I denying that our culture changed or that bad marriages didn't exist.

I'm simply saying you would have to be a complete moron to blanketly say that is the reason why single motherhood increased 40%.

 

[dank69]

Really? Seems like a very easy thing to google....

View attachment 64406






Re-read my post broceritops. In no way am I denying that our culture changed or that bad marriages didn't exist.

I'm simply saying you would have to be a complete moron to blanketly say that is the reason why single motherhood increased 40%.

This guy can't tell the difference between unwed mothers and single-parent households but wants us all to know how stupid we are compared to his superior intellect.

 

[Captante]

broceritops

Guess they ran you off from the rock you had slithered under? 😉

 

[nakedfrog]

This guy can't tell the difference between unwed mothers and single-parent households but wants us all to know how stupid we are compared to his superior intellect.

Same as it ever was.

 

[snoopy7548]

George Costanza agrees that not all marriages should remain marriages...