That's a fancy way of saying people get robbed of their purchasing power and/or surplus to allocate towards things that will pay them back in the future for however long it takes for things to run their course.
Are you suggesting that the same relationship regarding inflation and income is somehow different now than it was in the past? It has always worked this way. If you are looking for fairness, it doesnt exist like most hope.
And every one of those old men and their simps (you) saying things weren't easier needs to look at the inflation adjusted cost of housing, transportation, education and healthcare over time.
You have peddled this exact falsehood so many times ignorance is no longer a defense. You are a liar.
Not a liar. You are overlooking the fact that much of the cost you are facing exists because life standards have risen. You are expected to pay more to get what you think is equivalent, but is actually more.
You presented a house cost graphic that was adjusted for inflation. That is a start. But compare the typical house size, finishes and accessories from the 1960s to today. Houses today are 2 to 3 times bigger, have AC and a bunch of other appliances, multiple TVs, etc. You are looking at apples/oranges. If you price out a typical 1960s bungalo without AC, spartan kitchen, no garage, etc, you find it to cost a more reasonable amount. Do you WANT to live that way? Most dont, so then justify spending the extra cause "gotta have AC" or "gotta have that extra bedroom". I grew up in a 2 bedroom house with one bathroom and no garage. My sister and I shared the converted attic. It was hot in the summer, but I thought it was fine. I dont say that to be the "uphill both ways in the snow" guy. The point is the house my kids grew up in was twice as big and much more comfortable. But it cost me more.
Do the same inflation adjustment on pickups. Is the 1970s F150 the same value as a 2023 F150? Different size, different accessory, different capability and different projected lifespan. Part of that is now cheaper due to manufacturing technology and market expectation (ie every truck gets AC, etc, cant find barebones pickup anymore), but much of that is just being able to purchase MORE in a vehicle. The vehicle industry is focused on getting you to think you HAVE to have it, and arranges the offerings to encourage (even force) you to buy more than you need. The option is the shitbox life and a box of tools, which many have done for many years. I have never owned a new car, it makes no financial sense. I do appreciate all those dumbasses that just have to have the newness, as it keeps vehicle options available in the used market for me.
Once again, just a fancy way of saying that people will have to waste productive years of their lives treading water.
Nirvana doesnt exist.
Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and think a few steps out as to how these would go. Education -> debt. Start a company? With what? Anything that has low capital and low time investment (i.e. no bullshit licenses) to start up at is going to be highly competitive because of immigrints and you'll wind up making that kind of money and living like them.
That suggests to me you have never started a company and really have not much idea how to do it. Maybe you did and just forget what it took. Many, if not most, small companies are started with nothing but and idea and effort.
I weathered a crap economy in grad school. I accumulated a little debt, but I worked a job at the same time to offset what I could. It set me back a couple years on a career, but long run was more than worth it. Many others have done the same with similar results.
It is called investing during a time when the current returns are slim.
Tell me, how many of those people who did well during the depression had little to nothing at the opening stages of it? And of those people who started with nothing how many of them managed to end with something? Are those good odds? Of course little is up to chance, one can always work smarter and harder, but the steeper the path to accumulating wealth is the less wealth a person of any given level of smarts and effort will accumulate on average.
Many? No. I said some. My grandfather was one who left home with nothing and managed to buy a house and a car (who had those during that time) during the depression. Other family members, some did OK, some lost it all and endured poverty until Japan attached Pearl kicking off the war economy. The point being, things were MUCH worse then, and people were still able to figure things out, or if nothing else, weather through and start again later.
You are using mental gymnastics and deceitful language to dance around the fact that the bulk of a generation was robbed of a decade with which to accumulate wealth.
Do you actually think that this is the ONLY generation to have faced this kind of situation? Go park the poor me/poor us attitude. All of the reasons for the situation we currently face is due to factors outside the influence of each of us individually. Collectively as a people, over time, not one generation, but certainly outside of the influence of any one person. A person's trek toward financial security has to be crafted outside of relying on what worked for your dad or granddad. Everyone is facing the same decade of lost investment and I suggest, contrary to the money man guidance, that the loss is greater for those near the end of life than those starting out. Sure compounding interest is best accessed by investing sooner than later, but youth has the option to adjust course if necessary.
Keep in mind we are talking about retirement. Something that has really only existed since postwar periods. Crying about life being unfair that you cant afford the luxuries we take for granted and an opportunity to be a wart on society for your later years is childish. You may need to work to a later age than you "think" you should have to. Oh well. Life.
![[486]](https://data.irate4x4.com/avatars/m/0/94.jpg?1700178133){kind=avatar}
