I understand how you feel, but you are making the same assumptions but on the opposite side of the coin. Not all people in their 20's are "unadjusted, lazy nerds living hand-to-mouth from their parents."
I grew up poorer than poor and have been independent since a young teen, yet even with all of my hard work I'm still struggling to climb up the ladder. Could I have made better decisions? Yes, but you don't know what you don't know until you know that you didn't know.
Saying that all people who struggle in today's economy are lazy is unfair.
No, no, I didn't say that or mean to... I never intended to, so sorry if anything I said seemed like that -- I was trying to say the opposite. The author of the article though
is saying that, that the sharing economy exists because of millenial laziness and the inability for millennials to escape their mommy complexes. I was saying his brand of comedy, playing off of millennials, is lazy... But definitely not that people who are struggling are lazy.
"Not all people in their 20's are "unadjusted, lazy nerds living hand-to-mouth from their parents." I was saying that
the author of the article is lazy by portraying 20-year-old millenials as unadjusted nerds living hand-to-mouth from their parents. In that, if he's trying to be funny, making fun of millennials and blaming them for society's ills is the laziest form of comedy.
How did we go from single income family life to today? Inflation? I dunno much about economics, Whose at fault?
This shift isn't solely an economic shift, but also a social shift, and I don't think it's right to think of it as a "Fault." The shift to two working parents also followed along with progress and slowly breaking down systemic discrimination against women (which still exists despite progress).
The America (or West) that many people are thinking back on so fondly wasn't really that great a place. The "single income family" seems like it might have been an ideal, but the single income family wasn't necessarily the result of an
economy that could support that, but rather, it was the result of a
society that didn't allow anything else. It's important to remember when we're getting misty eyed looking back at the nuclear family as some sort of economic ideal, but effectively
forcing women to stay at home while the man goes out to make bread isn't an equitable society. Which one preceded the other is open to debate: Did women stay at home as unpaid child bearers because the economy made that possible, or did the economy make that possible because a less progressive society discriminated against women in the worldplace?
The single income family is a nice concept but that model existed
because of discrimination.
And also, forlorne concepts of the nuclear family (where dad goes to work and mom stays home with the kids) being some cherished ideal really only extend to
white working class American families. If you were not a white family, the economy was likely a lot worse for you 50 years ago than it is today, and it was a lot worse for your children.
