politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Remember the Yuppies?
Every generation after WWII has had a net negative view of capitalism under 30.
Then they get kids and property and the ones with a voice and power suddenly decide capitalism is OK after all.
That said, each generation since WWII it has taken longer for the next generation to inherit the capital. So Gen Z might be in their 50s or 60s before the majority decides capitalism is OK.
That could prove… interesting.
I own property. I wouldn't mind seeing its value halved if it meant everybody could afford a house.
Not to mention we shouldn't be valuing property in terms of monetary value, but rather the utility you get for that value.
Property is worth a shit ton right now, and I get that people like counting the high value of their property as an asset. But say you go to sell that property...you still have to live somewhere afterwards. Any new place you'd be buying or renting would be just as overinflated in terms of cost.
If the housing market were to crash again, you can't sell your house for as much, but also you wouldn't need to pay as much to move in somewhere else either. A house losing half its value doesn't delete half the house, it just makes it more accessible to buyers who don't already have a house to sell.
A problem here is: how many people with 20+ years on their mortgage are suddenly owing more than the house is worth? If my house's value were to drop by half tomorrow, I'd be stuck and unable to move because I would still need to pay as much as the previous values in order to move somewhere else.
I don't know how we fix that, but I don't think it's an insurmountable barrier to making housing affordable.
That is something people focus a lot on, but far more important is: can you afford to pay it? As long as the monthly payment doesn't change, the value of my house doesn't affect me at all. The problem comes when banks suddenly want to foreclose homes because it's underwater for reasons that the owner can't control.
Would you continue to pay $4000/month for a home when identical houses are available for $2000/month?
Banks don't forclose houses because they're underwater. Banks forclose houses because the owners realize they're underwater and they stop making $4000/month mortgage payments on their house that is only worth $2000/month.
I can't just switch to a cheaper house and pay less if selling my current one doesn't pay off my mortgage. I'd still be stuck with the same debt, that I took on voluntarily and could afford to pay when I did. As long as that situation doesn't change, nothing for me has to change.
I don't think anyone simply stops paying their mortgage just because the value of their house drops. They stop paying because they can't afford it. The 2008 crisis was because bad, predatory mortgages being pushed onto people who couldn't afford them (and the mortgager then offloading that risk so unsuspecting investors will bear the risk of the predictable default).
I suppose the comment said they decide capitalism is "ok", but maybe not ardent support.
If you manage to be confident and comfortable, then you don't have the interest/energy to be so actively *against" it, but also not mind some change so long as that change doesn't leave you behind.
There are of course those that want to hoard their wealth and only feel validated of they are scoring higher than others, but most folk just want to get by, and if they are getting by, they aren't inclined to be passionate one way or the other.
I admit I also feel that pressure to be more successful. I mean, it's that or accept that I'm being taken advantage of. The people who profit from my work make way more than I do, so I try to position myself so I can get a bigger share of that, but I often wish I could just forget about the money completely and build whatever I want. It's the unfairness of it all that's eating at me. Can we just drop this stupid system and make sure everybody has access to a comfortable life?
There's a difference now. People can't afford property or kids and they're pissed.
That’s been the case every generation since Gen X. As I pointed out, the difference is that the age when those become obtainable keeps on getting pushed later each generation. So Gen Z will be able to afford a mortgage just before they retire.
But that isn't true.
I don’t know if it’s so much about “inherit the capital” as it is about unregulated capitalism slowly taking more and more away from people. At some point the corporations will be trying to get blood from a stone.
It turns out that that only worked up to Gen X.
Thankfully it's bad enough now that a plurality of young people can't own property.
My wife and I just had our first, we both make engineer salaries, we can't afford a home.
Now, to be clear, that's a good thing; private property is theft. I myself don't have any interest in home ownership but the fact that even we can't hopefully ensures that the working class is sufficiently poor enough not be lulled back into complacency.
The bourgeois won't give up capital without a, literal, fight and the proletariat need to be sufficiently desperate to take it by force.