this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2025
392 points (100.0% liked)
World News
937 readers
935 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person, don't post hate.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are millennials also the first generation to have lower standards of living than their parents? I think housing costs is the biggest part of that.
Costs in general. I just stand there in the grocers thinking "shit, they should nationalize the food chain"
It's hard to think of powerful businesses I interact with from day-to-day that government shouldn't either completely nationalize or expropriate their property and split up.
grocery chains √
power companies(including gas stations)? √
internet providers? √
real estate companies/landlords √
Yadda yadda yadda...
So much is paid for by taxpayers anyway. Like cell towers.
The gov't subsidized cell towers but doesn't own them and can't dictate cost. So why did tax payers cover it?
Because the line must ho up!
Problem being is it's hard to write laws appropriately.
A huge difference in government and private enterprise is that government is 100% inflexible. Doesn't matter how stupid the results of the law are, nor how damaging. The workers have to follow the letter of the law until the state or federal Congress changes it. Government workers have no incentive to make sure you're satisfied. What are you gonna do? Not come back?
My pet theory is that conservatives hate government because they've encountered this, don't understand this is how it has to be. This is also why they want to privatize everything because "government stupid". No, you don't want government bending rules, unlike...
Private concerns can instantly say, "This is fucking stupid and we're changing tack." If a customer finds themselves victim of a stupid edge case, the company can work around it for them. They're motivated to keep customers happy.
There are cases for both sorts of ownership. Tag offices in Oklahoma were privately owned nightmares with some of the highest rates in the nation. Here in Florida we can not only get tags, but a myriad of other services at the county tax office. Cheap too! OTOH, tags were a SecState thing in Illinois and it was a total nightmare. Boss knew if you had to renew tags you were taking no less than half a day off.
I'd be interested in seeing how more public/private combos work. Our power company was such a thing, elected board members and all. We had stupid cheap power until, guess what, it was sold to a private power company. Some people's rates doubled and most of us saw 40% increases.
To your examples, in order:
Private grocery chains because I want them in competition, but break up and deny the monopolistic companies.
Power companies, government. Nobody has a choice anyway, only one set of infrastructure, simple enough to legislate.
Gas stations, private. Again, I want them competing and it's not like they're gouging us on gas prices. The margin is a few pennies per gallon, not enough to keep them in business without selling other goods.
Real estate/landlords, private, but with serious fucking guard rails and renter protections. How the hell is there a legal app for them to collude on prices?!
And YES, these monsters should be split back up. We've become so used to megacorps we're not remembering what the past was like. If you brought anyone, even a Republican, in from the 80s, they'd fucking scream over the state of mergers.
Then government is a shit form of collaboration, or at least totally incompatible with capitalism/private ownership.
Also, corporations are just as inflexible. You know that, Right? Have you ever dealt with an insurance company? A software company?
Fuck that. No more non-personal/communal ownership, no more government.
Western Australia's main power utilities are both private companies with the sole share holder being the state government. Power is reliable, systems are well maintained, particularly given the wide areas covered and the low density of population, prices are reasonable, the energy minister has input into direction and planning but mostly stays out of operation, executive and everyone below are all hired on merit
You could say the same about some kleptocratic states too. Without the maintenance nor the reliability. It's about integrity and accountability whether it's state owned or government owned. The difference is motives for individuals involved. Capitalism values the profit motive. Public private partnerships value how it looks to voters, who are generally worse off as they pay more for what would be more efficient under government control. Having two competing is probably an attempt to get the best of both worlds.
They don't compete, they are regionally separate, western Australia is the size of three texas' but with a population of 3m. Neither utility is a public private partnership, they are private companies setup and run by the state government for the people. The organisations are like private companies but the owners are the people.
Your opinions = yaddayaddayadda
Political leanings are always influenced by wealth
If you are wealthy and have a chance of becoming even more wealthy ... being a conservative is great because it ensures you keep your wealth and probably gain more
If you are not wealthy ... you have to support socialism because it's your only chance of having a life or even gaining any bit of wealth or control of your life.
Pretty sure the majority of the US conservative base is not wealthy. Only the top 0.1% has benefited financially from recent changes.
I think it has a lot more to do with someone's own experiences with government. I've lived in areas with corrupt local governments and incredibly well run governments. I can absolutely understand those who live their whole lives under corrupt local governments, the ones they actually interact with on a regular basis, thinking every other one is just as bad and wanting it as limited as possible.
Then of course there's the more hate oriented agendas, but calling those merely conservative feels like we're being too kind to them.
That's why people traditionally moved right as they aged. However, millennials are bucking the trend is the point.
It is also posited that as you age, you're more likely to have family and think about their immediate needs rather than society at large.
However, it can be just greed. The problem for conservatives is that they have tipped the balance so much that the divide is much greater and inequality greater, so they need to convince people to vote against their interests. The bottom 90% are far better off under more social measures.
I'm pretty sure their point is that millennials are unable to accrue enough wealth to become conservative.
I mean I don't have a lower standard of living than my parents sorta but they had seven kids and I have none and still they owned a massive house on a massive lot and I own a condo. They also paid theirs off and point a little plot that I think they hoped to make a weekend getaway thing but never got to the point of being able to do that. I mean I won computers and such but honestly thats not so much standard of living as the march of technology..
i think it's reasonable to include those things in standard of living. their standard afforded them the choice to do those things, so if you don't feel like you are afforded those same choices while living at a similar level of comfort then imo the standard has decreased.
well I talked about big things. I can buy better food which is not just a matter of it being available. Like pasture raised eggs and there are a few other day to days were we don't have to go with the absolute cheapest or generic. although in the last year much of that I have had to drop.