The United States Of Adult Children
Be it the percentage of adults receiving government benefits (over half), the number of young adults (under 30) dug into their parents' basements (again, over half), or the Nanny-state coming into full bloom, the proliferation of adult children in the U.S. is absolutely staggering.
Unless one can achieve financial independence and intellectual autonomy, individuals will always be controlled (from without) resulting in the loss of essential freedoms (a great American tragedy).
Does anybody see anything on the horizon that might indicate a reversal this incredibly disturbing trend?
Unless one can achieve financial independence and intellectual autonomy, individuals will always be controlled (from without) resulting in the loss of essential freedoms (a great American tragedy).
Does anybody see anything on the horizon that might indicate a reversal this incredibly disturbing trend?
Comments (84)
Antinatalism. One less kid born is one less dependent. Peace.
Good novel. I remember read it in a big book called “grandes maestros americanos” (Great American Masters)
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes. This is the principle which the future should hold. Less natality less problems. Less humans less conflicts in the world. Scientists say my country will lost 10 million citizens in the next decades because the lack of natality. What a good notice.
Hey, theres some good news! We should all walk hand-in-hand to collectively decide to end this for the next generation. Why is nothingness so reviled? Nothing did nothing to no one. But somehow the fawning over producing stuff and the mythos of the abstract cause of happiness, or some religious sentiment, keeps the dismal fray and suffering going.
Because our educational system is flawed. They do not teach us how to get happiness and self-confidence. It looks like we are forced to live with others. I guess it is just a trap. We can work hand by hand but there are a lot of people who actually wants to have kids because their lives are somehow empty.
Having kinds nowadays is quite selfish
Here is where people will give a litany of why people need to be born to experience life: virtue(wtf?), pleasure, art, music, aesthetics, cause god wants it, cause people just "need" to exist so they can pursue goals and find meaning through struggle, to fill role of X thing, to produce more stuff, technology,laughter, etcetc.
It's an odd time to be asking this question. My son, who is very independent, is living at home now because he lost his job and career to the pandemic. He's gone back to school. A lot of other people are in the same situation now. The fact that they have families who can help out is a great thing. That's what families are for.
Quoting synthesis
I don't see it as disturbing at all.
In another post, we were discussing the aphorism "To a hammer, everything looks like a nail." I guess we could retread that as "To an anti-natalist, every problem looks like reproduction."
As usual, you are shanghaiing someone else's thread to propound your.... unpopular theories.
It is a problem if one is not lucky enough to have families. It is an indication that opportunities to begin a life of your own are dwindling, that means those in a loving family might be the least of our worries. People without families lose their jobs to the pandemic too.
Contra synthesis I would say that a welfare state is necessary to reduce independence on the family. I also do not see the reference to 'a great american tragedy', isn't the loss of freedom a tragedy everywhere? Aristotle already knew you need some financial independence in order to be free.
I don't disagree with this, but the phenomenon @synthesis is describing is not relevant to many people living at home right now. They're home, not because they have any problem being independent, but because their lives have fallen apart because of the pandemic. As I've said, that's what families are for.
If its actually the root of the problem then yeah.
Still an answer.
Sure and I understand that. There is something inherently problematic about the situation though. It means the familial structure is getting more important as a necessary safeguard, which will also keep people from straying from the family too much, lest they become estranged. So even before they will venture out, they know that they should 'behave'. To that extent I agree with synthesis. It fosters dependence, which was actually exactly the agenda of the rather conservative governments that have ruled the US and Europe since the 1980s. The ideals of discovery prevalent in the seventies have given away to traditionalism. That is not your fault T Clark, I am not targeting you, you indeed do what a loving father does and your children are the better for it, but a social trend that I am discerning.
The United States of Nominalism. The United States was founded by people like Thomas Jefferson, who was a British Empiricist. This is not a secret. And Benjamin Franklin who was an open Satanist. This is just obvious to anyone who reads.
I think I understand what @synthesis was trying to say. As I wrote, I don't see it as a problem, even if we discount any problems caused by the pandemic.
Interesting how you toss British empiricism and satanism into the same boat.... lol. But even if it is true, so what and what does it say about the problem of freedom and family?
It just happens to be true, but that wasn't to associate British Empiricism with Satanism.
Quoting Tobias
You cannot have freedom and nominalism. If nominalism is the predominant worldview, the only ones who have "freedom" is the money power. If nominalism is the predominant worldview, then family is impossible. There are only atomistic individuals, no community, no tribe, no family, no society.
Yep, which is why capitalism needs to be abolished, as that is what keeps so many from attaining financial independence.
The result is apparent in Australia, in an aged care system that was set up to be inadequately funded by the Howard government and is now utterly dysfunctional; in schools that cannot effectively teach students, because they are obliged to solve an ever-growing list of social issues; and will be repeated as the present conservative government looks for ways to defund the NDIS.
It's not capitalism that is at fault. It's simply lack of equity in the distribution of wealth.
That's precisely what capitalism is. Wealth is capital, and capitalism is when capital is held entirely by a small class of people, making the rest subservient to them. If wealth was equitably distributed -- and somehow stably so, so it doesn't just collapse back into few hands immediately -- that would be socialism, the ownership of capital by the people generally rather than a small elite class.
But that isn't going to happen.
Unless the billions of dollars of capital they owned were our homes and businesses, making us all de facto subservient to them if we want access to the things we need to survive, even if they don't have any de jure authority over us.
I'd reckon COVID plays a role, and I'd be interested to see how the statistics compare before/after. In any case, nothing wrong with being out of work and receiving bennies today due to the pandemic. If the economy is basically shut down and everyone's been afraid to leave their homes for the past year I don't see the harm in young people moving back with their parents for the time being as long as this trend reverses when COVID rates drop off.
Nice. And this could be used for any number of beliefs...
It's the version of corporate capitalism.
Climate change.
That is more or less my position, though not criminalize per se but invalidate contracts thereof, without which it has no force. (Also, religious prohibitions of usury usually fail to recognize property rent as essentially the exact same thing, which gives an obviously loophole, which is how medieval Catholic and current Muslim banking operates).
Thing is though that once there’s no way to make money just by owning other people’s stuff and charging them to use it, there’s pretty much no motive to own more than you use yourself anymore, and so no reason to be a supermultibillionaire at all.
Thus through the invalidation of usury we create socialism, by having the state do less rather than more.
Blondie's third term.
Of course there is such a reason: safety. Since time immemorial, people have strived to amass wealth in an effort to guarantee as much safety for themselves as possible.
That’s reason to accumulate savings enough to last you a lifetime, sure. But that is still far less that what billionaires accumulate.
If you want to be prudent, you need to prepare for everything, including natural catastrophes and the collapse of economy. For this, billions are needed.
Billions would be of no use to you in the case of the collapse of the economy, would they? A gun and the skill to use it would reverse the acquisition of even a trillion dollars in heartbeat in the case of a collapsed system.
I recall reading that when Obama stepped in to save the American automotive industry in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, a faction within the Republican Party argued it would be better to let it collapse rather than save it through Government intervention.
Do you think the Republicans were right in saying that?
Hence having your own army is part of the billionaire's plan for ultimate safety.
Rich people don't just amass money while living in sheds. They strategically invest in buildings, physical infrastructure, social infrastructure, means of defense etc. etc. that help keep them safe.
Regardless of external conditions, any company that can not remain solvent should be forced into bankruptcy.
Had the government saved no businesses during the pandemic, people would have seen (early-in) just how insane the lockdowns were and policy would have changed.
You MUST allow the system to work.
Is there anything going on in this country now besides fear and dependency?
Blondie's third term! He's your savior! Hallelujah!
Socialism is about lowering the bar far enough so everybody is miserable.
False dilemma.
All one needs to do to in order to live in a country where you are free to live up to your potential, is to reconceptualize "free" and "live up to your potential", so that the new concepts match one's reality, whatever that may be.
Just like the people in the USSR, Communist China, and Nazi Germany had to "reconceptualize" what freedom and living up to your potential was.
No thank you. My wagon will always remained hitched to the traditional conception of American freedom.
By golly, what are you complaining about then??!
I am afraid that people like you who desire salvation (from the challenges of life) feel that everybody else must change the way they think in order to feel as desperate as you do.
It's leftist religion. "Save me, save me, save me" (and save everybody else because they're going to have to pay for it).
And in the case of citizens and governments, I'd say it's an abusive parental relationship.
What 'system'? Laissez-faire capitalism? The 'invisible hand' of the market? Those who can't get by without assistance - leave them to die so 'the system' can return to 'normality'?
:up:
Capitalism is the only economic system there is. "Communism" is state-capitalism and socialism is capitalism with the profits redistributed.
The bottom-line is that the market (society) does a MUCH better job of making choices that a bunch of bureaucrats that inevitably have their heads up their asses (best case scenario)..
In all human (social) endeavor, you do what you can to keep the corruption to a minimum. This will allow for the best outcomes.
What system would you rather live under, corrupted capitalism, corrupted Communism (ala the USSR) or corrupted Socialism (ala Venezuela)?
The system you are scorning IS that system. If, as you suggest, all government intervention and support was withdrawn, the ultra-wealthy, the 1%, would withdraw to their gated estates and private islands, the 'preppers' to their bunkers. The remainder of economy would collapse into anarchy, there would be hundreds of millions of deaths. Just like Venezuala, but on a massive scale.
The worst part is, the so-called 'conservatives' and libertarians, like Rand Paul, are the very people who were prepared to let a narcissist meglomaniac overturn democracy for his own selfish ends. They rail about the 'evils of socialism' but meanwhile turn a blind eye to the obvious corruption of their own elected leader.
I would rather a country like Sweden, for all its failings. Or Australia. Mind you I totally recognize there are no utopias.
My friend, you need to read up on how this economic system actually works. If you do not understand the monetary system, international trade and finance, you cannot understand what has been taking place over the past 50 years. The economic system has been horrible corrupted by political hacks and their overlords.
This happens every 75 years or thereabout so you have to route out the corruption. Capitalism has its flaws, don't get me wrong, but it there's a great deal about the way it works really well with freedom.
Working people pay taxes; they should get benefits. Rich people pay few if any taxes. They should not receive benefits (like tax give-aways). Better yet, just expropriate the to .001%. That's right: Take it all away from the billionaires.
Quoting synthesis
The prime reason for this is the 50-year decline in income (and/or purchasing power) of working class people, and the maldistribution of wealth in the United States. Young adults can not earn enough to set up a home, even in dilapidated efficiencies. Comparison:
1971 - my take-home income: about $100 a week (worked for the RC church--last of the big spenders)
- my rent on a nice efficiency near work: $90 -- that's slightly less than 25% of income.
2020 85% of rental units in the same city are more than the cheapest $700 - 1000 range. To spend only 25% of one's income on rent one now has to bring home $48,000. Young adults might not be able to find a $1000 a month rent
Quoting synthesis
The United States is the stingiest, least proactive nanny state among G20 countries. It's the most incompetent, negligent nanny that ever was (maybe after the Soviet Union).
Human social interaction breeds corruption. It is present everywhere, not just in capitalism. So the best you can do it try to control the corruption.
Where did I suggest I have this idealized picture of anything? Look at what happened over the past 200 years and see if humanity is not 100x's better-off.
What is your alternative?
When you say:
Quoting synthesis
Quoting synthesis
Quoting synthesis
You're presenting an idealised picture where the 'real' capitalism or the 'real' free market provides the best outcome for all, lifing everyone out of subservience and into what you present as 'independence'.
Quoting synthesis
You're repeating the slogans of economic libertarians, who say that 'the free market' is the panacea to all social ills and that 'government intervention' and 'socialism' are the cause of corruption. It's a thoroughly idealised picture as there's no society in the modern world which actualises the kind of economic model you're striving for. I completely agree that corruption is something that has to be fought at all levels, but, as I pointed out, I think the current political right in the US are far more corrupt than the political left, mainly due to the influence of big money and the complete abandonment of traditional conservative principles under the de facto leadership of Trump.
The working wealthy pay almost all the taxes in the U.S. The top .01% might not pay much because of their exotic shelters, but the rest pay it and pay it and pay it....
Quoting Bitter Crank
The financialization of the U.S. economy speaks to a lot to it but look at the spending habits of the young people. They save zip. Spend it on new cars, vacations, $1000.+ cellphones that last a year, on and on and on. Most of these people deserve exactly what they are getting...nothing.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Would you be happy if your taxes were 75% if your income instead of 50%? How about 90%? Wouldn't that be wonderful!
The government is NOT your friend.
Is that why BIG tech, mass media, social media, corporate America, Wall Street, Education, and entrenched government are all on the left?
Who is the political right?
I agree: The spending habits of young and middle aged people are very poorly informed. One doesn't need the top of the line cell phone, and -- by the way -- a decent phone lasts a lot longer than a year. A 5 year old phone will usually perform its primary functions just fine,
One of the reasons I could save money on my low-paying Catholic Church job was that I didn't consume much. I covered larger expenses with cash--no credit cards.
Granted: the economy now is not the same as 50 years ago. The value of $1000 in today (or to be precise 2019) would be worth $158.31 in 1972. MEANING $1000 has lost over 6 times its value since 1972.*** Declining or stagnant wages compound the problem.
True: some people are leaving colleges and getting high paying jobs that enable them to live on their own, travel, marry, have children, buy 4 cars (for 2 drivers), and have a mortgaged house full of @crap
*** Inflation Calculator
@crap Crap: A History of Cheap Stuff in America by Wendy A. Woloson. Buy this book and have yet 1 more piece of crap.
The neonazis and their leader who almost toppled the US democracy are extreme right. FAUX News too.
We have arrived at a place (like in the game of Monopoly) where one player essentially has all the assets and has won the game. It's time to pour all the money, houses, and hotels back into the box-lid and start a new game.
I think they should not only keep all the fences and national guard in Washington, DC. (around the Capitol), but even better, fence off the entire city and then build prison walls around the metro area because this is where all the politicians, the lobbyists, and anybody else who has been destroying our democracy needs to be kept for the next 50 years!
*sigh*
*facepalm*
I'm not going to defend things you merely imagine I said or stances you merely imagine I hold.
The fact that you need to resort to such lowly tactics just goes to show that your position has no merit.
You keep whining about big corporations and big government, but you also want people to be free to live up to their full potential.
Guess what? Big corporations and big government are exactly what some people being free to live up to their full potential looks like. It's you who wants the nanny state to protect you from others living up to their full potential.
See, you don't want people to live up to their full potential! You want to put them into prison for that!
You can do better than this.
Quoting baker
Ditto.
Economy is the thing that has an effect on Americans.
Just look at the rapid pace how the time shortens for the US to double it's debt. This 1,9 trillion debt package (the ARP) distributed all along will get the Biden administration to... late summer or fall? Again then? (And do note that this is a global phenomenon...at least in the West)
So this year the US is going from 100% debt to GDP to 110% to GDP and then onward:
See US Stimulus Will Boost Growth at a Cost of Higher Deficits, Debt
You think this will go on perpetually?
You don’t even understanding what the word “capitalism” means.
There are four things to discuss here, two different distinctions:
- 1. Goods and services being exchanged voluntarily.
vs
- 2. Goods and services being exchanged under the coercion of an authority.
and
- 3. The stuff everyone uses to do stuff generally belonging to everyone.
vs
- 4. The stuff everyone uses to do stuff generally belonging to a small class of people.
1 is called "a free market".
2 is called "a command economy".
3 is called "socialism".
4 is called "capitalism".
People like Adam Smith argued for 1 over 2, and never said anything about "capitalism", but said some things suggestive of preferring 3 over 4 too.
People like Karl Marx argued for 3 over 4, and never said anything about "a command economy", but said some things suggestive of preferring 1 over 2 too.
Libertarian socialists are explicitly in favor of 1 and 3 over 2 and 4, and say that you can't have 1 without 3 or vice versa, because 2 will create 4 and vice versa.
People like you don't distinguish between 1 and 4, and just use the word "capitalism" as though it meant 1 only, when what everyone else is actually arguing against is 4.
Eventually, the music stops.
People like me? :)
There an infinite versions of everything, but when it comes down to it, there is one economic system. How different societies choose to manipulate it is what it is, but when you look at the most successful countries (on balance), they had the freest economies and populations that enjoyed the highest standards of living.