Weird how that lines up with the collapse of the soviet union
It also lines up with 10 years after Reagan. I bet if you did a plot of “early 20s married homeowners” it would look the same but the plunge would start at 1982.
I’d argue that Reagan was the result of the western elites losing their fear of the Soviet Union.
I’m inclined to agree, it’s the point were they gave up on class collaborationism and decided that pauperization and a stick would be more in their favor than dropping crumbs to the labor aristocrats. Also on a superstructural level the point were they began the rollback against anything won in the 1960s and 1970s in regards to civil rights.
I really do believe the BS of austerity and tax breaks for the rich from that era really signaled the beginning of the end for capitalism. When you think about it, almost every industry has basically been making money by living on the corpse of the 80s. It’s hard for me to put in to words, but everything produced feels like the 80s but with a different spin.
Ultimate 80s yuppie Donald Trump being President is the perfect poster child of this.
Awfully convenient that “the end of history” seemed to align with the end of having to compete with the only other superpower (wink wink nudge nudge)
the “luck” here and its just existing at the same time the USSR put competitive pressure on western countries not to immiserate the proletariat
how weird that avocado toast was invented right around the same time as the illegal dissolution of the Soviet Union
With Millennials beaten into ground and swept under the rug, and now Zoomers reaching their 30s facing the same problems plus extra, we are now looking at two entire genrations of people left to rot.
We can’t keep throwing people away like this. It makes me sick.
Eventually the people will throw back. It’s unfortunate that it’s taken 2 or more generations to get there but people can only be pushed so far
I agree with the sentiment but “and married” could skew this wildly for all we know, since marriage has changed a lot over that time period. It should be its own control variable!
I’m under 30, have a mortgage and a partner, but we’re not planning on ever getting married! I suppose materialism impacts this; if we had the means for a wedding ceremony without it impacting long term financial plans maybe we would think differently (and our generation would too), but the institution of marriage has fallen out of favour with a lot people in my age bracket, regardless of means.
we’re in the same boat but i guess there’s a bunch of tax incentives for being married or something
Get court married with a small house party. That’s what I did. A few hundred dollars for food, drink, tux, and dress
Is anyone familiar with the Melinda Cooper argument that there was a concerted shift in the US / Canada from capitalist distribution of surplus via wages to assets? Obviously in the long run this alone would cause a great stagnation of economic growth, which is what we’ve been seeing for decades now as real production stalls and asset inflation skyrockets.
I haven’t had a chance to read her book(s) yet, but prima facie it seems a compelling argument.
Piketty said the same thing in Capital of the Twenty First Century, arguing when the rate of return on assets is larger than the rate of growth (R > G), stagnation follows. The financial sector was in shambles when he published that book.
