this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2025
743 points (99.3% liked)

Tumblr

287 readers
525 users here now

Welcome to /c/Tumblr

All the chaos of Tumblr, without actually going to Tumblr.

Rule 1: Be Civil, Not CursedThis isn’t your personal call-out post.

  • No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
  • No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
  • Keep it fun and weird, not mean-spirited

Rule 2: No Forbidden PostsSome things belong in the drafts forever. That means:

  • No spam or scams
  • No porn or sexually explicit content
  • No illegal content (don’t make this a federal case)
  • NSFW screenshots must be properly tagged

If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can handle it. Otherwise just reblog and relax.

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 1 points 1 minute ago

I am pretty old & my mom and dad both worked at jobs. My grandmas did not BUT their moms did, so I think the one income nuclear family thing was a blip in history. Mostly people lived in larger family groups, more than one person was working even if someone was at home.

I would suck at being a housewife, don't mind working but yeah it should mean we are raking in cash, not just surviving.

[–] AlexLost@lemmy.world 2 points 20 minutes ago

This was "middle class" and not everybody. The goalposts moved and middle class is now in the mid 500ks take home. Wages never kept up, so the classes shrank by default. It was and is all planned by those at the top to syphon off more and more so they can elevate themselves from us common plebs. Almost like cycles in nature? We fight and gain concessions, they slowly roll them back until we start again...

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I was making 15 an hour when Clinton was President, no degree. I had to have roommates, it really wasn't that much money where I lived.

There are something like 40 MILLION workers making less than 17 an hour now.

And for the "but most are teens" crowd, number one they are not mostly teens, and number two teens need to be able to afford housing, transportation, food, and the doctor, like everybody else, and their family needs the money too because minimum wage is freaking seven bucks an hour.

Sorry kids, we need a new ballroom and you would not believe how much gold paint.

[–] Semester3383@lemmy.world 1 points 50 minutes ago

The idea that it was common because that's what was depicted on TV ain't really so. Think about how many shows right now, and over the last 30 years, have had people living in NYC, in huge, modern apartments, while working as a cab driver. Or a waitress.

The truth is that our standard of living has increased; real purchasing power has gone up. But we also expect to do more, and have more. And the cost of essentials has increased faster than the cost of non-essentials, which makes the gains feel like they're being chewed up and spat out.

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/comparing-the-costs-of-generations.html

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

All of this was only true of white families.

[–] ApollosArrow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

I grew up in the 80s. I can’t think of a single minority family that had an income of one and did what was described in the posr. I also grew up in a large city, so this may also be referring to suburbs and more rural areas.

[–] Shave_MyBeever@lemmy.world 21 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

You can blame Reagan for a large part of this, among many other issues.

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 hours ago

Where's that unlabeled graph of a line going steadily up and then at a point marked "Reagan" everything falls off a cliff?

[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

The Behind the Bastards episodes with Raygunz are my favorite.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 16 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Roseanne was a show in the 80s about a hard-working blue-collar family that was often struggling to get by.

They had a house with a detached garage and 3 kids.

[–] Microtonal_Banana@lemmy.zip 12 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Another example is Al Bundy in Married With Children. He was a shoe salesman with a stay at home wife and two kids but managed to own a nice home.

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

But they joked about money all the time! The struggle!

Oddly enough, they don't joke about that in shows as much anymore. Wonder why?

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

Which people lived this life? Is how we are organised today incompatible with the way they viewed the world?

[–] saimen@feddit.org 7 points 5 hours ago

Yeah I mean where do you think all these billionaires got their money from?

[–] Debaser@reddthat.com 3 points 5 hours ago

Ah yes, the art of "Enshittification" i.e., profit over product. And obviously you are the product for the billionaires and vertainly not other way around. https://www.themurrowproject.org/p/the-enshitification-of-everything

[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 19 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Not to mention how much other stuff was stolen from young people, like how awesome the internet was in the mid-2000's before it got absolutely destroyed by corporations - game consoles that didn't require 35 accounts to play a game ONLINE ONLY and a subscription to EVERYTHING in your life. Sure, it's always been bad (because capitalism) but not THIS bad. And it'll only get worse as the population becomes less tech literate.

Kids just go with it now, and it's really sad, they don't know anything different.

[–] Hyperrealism@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

Adjusted for inflation, an NES would cost $600 dollars today. An NES game would cost $150. You had to go to the mall to buy the games.

Thanks to spotify, youtube, and piracy music is now essentially free and available almost everywhere. Adjusted for inflation a CD/tape album you bought in 1985 would cost $30. You would had to travel to the mall, but an entire album just for that one song you liked, and listen to it on repeat for an entire month or stay up late to tape a particular song from the radio.

Don't glorify the past too much. We have never had such easy and cheap access to such a wide variety of media and games. Napster and early torrenting worked well, but the quality was often shit for plenty of stuff.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 1 points 20 minutes ago

Guys! It's ok! We can't buy houses, we no longer own our own computers, and everything we have is rented, not owned.......but it's ok! Because now music is freeeeeeeee!!!!!!

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Sometimes I feel like the difficulty of access for old video games and music made it even more exciting. When everything is a button click away, it loses some luster.

My kids can watch literally anything on tv. I try to tell them about a time when, sure, there were 30 or 40 channels, but only a handful of them catered to me. Maybe TGIF on ABC, or Sunday nights on Fox, and Nickelodeon was always good. Disney was pay to play. Might get lucky and get something good on TNT. When you flipped to a channel and something good was on, it was awesome. Even when they started putting guides on the channels, or the TV Guide channel, you could get lucky and find something, and that was nice.

Obviously same goes for radio, and not counting the whole station not coming in and the song being half static.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 88 points 1 day ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (6 children)

And to make that happen:

  1. The gilded age made some robber barons insanely rich (though not as rich as the current American oligarchs)
  2. There was a huge economic crash, called the Great Depression, during which the excesses of the rich were incredibly unpopular and the rich felt in real danger
  3. To get out of the Great Depression, the US Government created all kinds of "socialist" programs to help people get back on their feet, strengthen unions, regulate business, make massive investments in US infrastructure, etc.
  4. Right as the Great Depression was ending, WWII began
  5. For a while the US was "neutral", and was manufacturing war materiel for the various countries at war, though mostly for the Allied side. This involved huge amounts of government spending.
  6. Then, a few years after WWII began, the US entered the war, and spending ramped up even more.
  7. Virtually every other modern economy in the world had its infrastructure destroyed during the war. Britain was bombed relentlessly, Germany was flattened, Japan was nuked, France was turned into Rubble, the USSR's factories were destroyed as Germany advanced and partially rebuilt in the middle of nowhere.
  8. The war ended and while every other country was rebuilding their shattered infrastructure, the US infrastructure was running hot and able to supply the world's needs
  9. American workers were massively in demand because it was almost the only remaining industrialized country with intact factories
  10. American workers still retained the massive worker benefits and union membership that was the result of the New Deal economy

So, take that sequence, and for a brief moment a white, male worker in the US could support a family on a blue-collar salary in a way they hadn't ever done before that. Once other countries rebuilt their infrastructure, the US lost that edge. Once American businesses pushed for the roll-back of worker protections, blue-collar workers lost that benefit. Bit, by bit, the world returned to the way it has normally been, where the lowest class barely survives and both parents work hard, while the rich benefit.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 points 13 minutes ago

Fantastic post, well done, sir.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 24 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

And since then, productivity exploded. Machines and automation everywhere. We are in the age of overconsumption. And value is created at an always acceleratind pace.

But then things started to slow down. But wealth growth can't slow down! It has to grow, always, and always faster. So when "produce more" stopped working, they turned to "produce for cheap".

They started cutting spendings and benefits. But it wasn't enough. And they told western workers that they were no longer competitive. Yes, that plant they're shutting down was making money. But it would make MORE money in China and other third world countries.

And while plants were going away, salaries got stagnant. Wealth was growing again!

But then the growth slowed down again. So they bought governments to get huge subsidies they could funnel in their wealth growth again.

And now plants are "optimal". Wages are low. Govs hand out money. Why is it not working?

Because they impoverished so much the working class that there is no one left to buy the goods they produce.

The problem is obvious to anyone looking: money is needed for the economy to run. If it's all locked up by oligarchs, then it serves no purpose and the economy suffocates. And there is no remote way a handful of people can manage the world's economy. "Trickle down economy" has failed everywhere and everytime it was attempted. So they're terrified. Terrified of the working class, terrified of common good, terrified of common sense.

So to make sure they can keep hoarding whatever is left to get, they turned to fascists and propped them across the world, by controlling medias and flooding social networks.

And here we are: in the age of overproduction and mass poverty combined, with a class of scared oligarchs ready to take the world down with them as long as no one stops their wealth hoarding.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] justaman123@lemmy.world 9 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah the position of privilege that America occupied globally for the last 75 years minus the last ten or twenty years is not something that's talked about enough in "they" took the American dream from us

[–] Hyperrealism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

And what that position of privilege cost the rest of the world. For example, Eisenhower was president from '53-'61, is often seen as a great president by Americans, and that decade is seen as a golden age by plenty of Americans (especially boomers).

Outside the US, Eisenhower had Lumumba assassinated in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The replacement they helped install, Mobutu, basically continued the brutal rule and many of the atrocities that had occured in the Congo Free State (death toll as high as 10 million), so that minerals could continue to be extracted. Ultimately this would lead to the first and second congo war and an additional 5 million deaths. Fun fact: a few years ago Tesla/Musk signed a large contract with a company which was formed from a merger of companies including the successor of Compagnie du Katanga. The latter was a concession company that operated in the Congo Free State and is responsible for plenty of the worst atrocities committed during that time. Just in case anyone here thinks colonialism was a long time ago. There's also stuff like the Guatamalan genocide which was a result of the CIA instigated coup of 1954, the 1953 Iranian coup which would ultimately result in Iran becoming an Islamic theocracy, and his signing a deal with Franco which arguably prolonged his rule.

load more comments (3 replies)

I'm only in my 30s. My dad supported our family on a high school education. I don't have a college education but I did two different certification programs to work in my field. I'm single with no kids and live alone and I'm still struggling. I don't know how anyone has a family right now. I can't even afford me. I'm so mad that my dad raised an entire family and bought and paid off a house and I can barely pay my damn rent and buy groceries with a better education and job than what he had.

[–] Wigglesworth@retrolemmy.com 20 points 22 hours ago

Don't worry. It'll get worse.

[–] Event_Horizon@lemmy.world 13 points 23 hours ago

It wasn't even that long ago either. It was still relatively common to have single income households in the 80's when I was born.

My mum wasn't working at all when my older siblings were born, and she only started working when I started preschool.

Also, her minimum wage income boosted my parents savings so much they were able to buy an investment property and drop money into other things.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago

Those same people also had pensions for life once they retired in their 50s. They also didn't have to pay for health insurance.

[–] edahs@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

My folks got married in the 60s. They bought their first house in the early 70s for 32k. 3 bed / 1 bath house with a big backyard in a decent neighborhood (albeit on a busy street). My mom and dad both worked, but my mom stopped when I was born (early 70s). House was tiny, about 800sq ft. They upgraded in the mid eighties for 120k. Bigger place on a quieter street. Mom was back to working again but we were able to take multiple vacations a year. Camping, Disney, etc. Today, I'm not sure they could do it. Sure they would be making more but the first house? 640k. Thats a 1900% increase. Thats about 6% increase year on year compounded. How has the salary growth been for the same period? 1% - 1.5% compounded yoy (inflation adjusted). Fucking gross.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (5 children)

When I was a whipper snapper you could go to the two screen movie theater that got the movies once they left the new theater and watch a double feature matinee for a dollar. But not if you had an onion in your belt.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] hamid@crazypeople.online 4 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

For white people in the imperial core

Keep downvoting, sorry the truth hurts that your parents only had those privileges from raping the rest of the world

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

You're right but you've also framed this in the most inflammatory way possible.

The life being described by OP was very much a privilege of a vast global minority. Sure it's something everyone should have but it's not something that's ever existed for most people.

Is it something that can be had again? Absolutely. But we can dream bigger than bringing it back for just Americans/Westerners (even if the West only got there via exploitation of others).

[–] hamid@crazypeople.online 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

It is inflammatory because this conservative bullshit is fucking offensive as fuck to everyone on earth who were exploited by the US and its allies to make that life possible.

Is it something that can be had again? Absolutely.

No, it can't, not in the way it happened. It happened by extreme exploitative capitalism and it ended in the exact way you are living now. Those same people are the ones who had their wealth transferred up. Those same people are the people who got foreclosed in 2008. There is no alternate ending to what happened then than the world you live in. To think you can go back to the past and live a way of life that doesn't exist from an idealized past is conservative thought.

No one on earth will ever have that again, you need to dream much bigger where you aren't profiting off the backs of my family with a better world for everyone that looks nothing like the regressive 1950s fantasy your boomer parents and grandparents lived in or you get the shit you have now.

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

If you're saying you want a better world for everyone then we're in agreement.

I won't speak for people whose parents lived in the West in the 50s, that's not my experience. But I hope that they also want shared global prosperity and safety, which is not how I'd describe the past 75 years or more.

[–] rhymeswithduck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

What are you calling the imperial core? No one uses that term in the US. I have no idea what you're talking about.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 3 points 6 hours ago

Some people are more concerned with feeling right than being understood. Also a touch of in-group-joy by using phrasing of in-group

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Yep, sounds like an average USAian.

load more comments
view more: next ›