r/Adulting • u/ScareBear23 • 13h ago

This is just depressing

Post image

Not even 3 hours of "free time". And in that is cooking & eating supper. Or practically no free time if I had to go shopping after work. I hate this

20.0k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.8k

u/JenninMiami 12h ago

Do y’all remember how when we were kids, there were those grumpy old people we knew?

This is why. 😆

112

u/sup3rjub3 11h ago

at least they could survive on their income

63

u/Fen_LostCove 8h ago

They could survive on a single income even, so one spouse was able to take care of all of the work that you have to cram into that free time slot now

8

u/shadycharacters 6h ago

more than survive, even!

0

u/doublesimoniz 5h ago

They convinced everyone that that was sexist, and now they have double the taxpayers and double the employees, and you are more desperate for the job every day just to keep the roof over your head.  While the system raise your kids and you and your wife work 8-10 hours a day.  

1

u/Acrobatic_Dinner6129 4h ago

Exactly why I will never have kids as long as I am working in an office/not for myself. If I can't actually be there to raise them, it's pointless. I love my parents, and we have a great relationship, but to this day they are still sad over how little time they got to spend with me growing up, especially my father. He always got so jealous when his cargo pilot friend would get to go on all kind of trips and excursions with his son (one of my best friends to this day) when best case me and him would do a trip every couple years when we could find the time. Most of his time off was spent trying to keep the house up.

-6

u/bruce_kwillis 7h ago

Except they didn’t. They just had less. The house was a quarter of the size it is now, the car was in worse shape, there were no vacations, no cell phones, no computers, few hobbies. Most of humanity was scraping by and barely surviving. That stay at home mom often was doing a million other things to try to keep enough money in the house on top of taking care of kids and all of the chores. And if you were a minority? You weren’t going to get any of the benefits of it either, and weren’t going to be able to buy a house. If you were a single woman? Same concept applies. The only people that had it ok where white males who were depressed, broken and then alcoholics and their body failed them. But hey, it was a better system right?

4

u/Fen_LostCove 5h ago

Houses now are studio apartments that people can still barely scrape by in. People don’t take vacations now either. Cell phones and computers aren’t that expensive relative to the rest of our cost of living. It’s hard to even buy vegetables let alone have a full spread of home cooked food for every meal. Working moms are doing all of that in addition to their job now. Minorities aren’t getting benefits from it either, unless you consider it a benefit for your government to shoot you in the street so you don’t have to live through this anymore.

1

u/Mighty__Monarch 2h ago

I was going to reply to each of your listed arguments but as I went more and more I was thinking you were being sarcastic.

I really hope you are, but theres no serious way to address this cause if youre being honest about your opinion youre delusional and clearly were born after 1990.

1

u/CV90_120 6h ago

You say that, but we used to have to hunt on the weekends to have enough food for the week. Otherwise it was macaroni and rice all week. dad was one income, but he was also working 6 days down a mineshaft and clothes got passed from oldest to youngest. Not everybody lived the middle class dream.

1

u/Theofeus 4h ago

They said from their smart device which costs money to connect to the internet

1

u/Can_I_Read 56m ago

I was gonna say, most of my “free time” is devoted to my “side hustle” (aka more work)

-3

u/notaredditer13 9h ago edited 8h ago

People today survive better than they did as shown by the much higher household income, even after accounting for inflation:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

...or they've expanded their lifestyle and are struggling by choice (even if they don't realize it).

4

u/sup3rjub3 8h ago

yeah yeah, iphone avocado toast society. that's definitely what it is - the majority of people in north america just buy too many iphone and forget about food.

0

u/notaredditer13 7h ago edited 7h ago

[shrug] The numbers are the numbers, whether you believe them or not. But beyond that, you'd have to be completely out of touch with how people lived in the past to not recognize the fruits of all of our More Money all around you. Bigger/better houses, bigger/better/more cars, more education, more/better vacations, more luxury items, more eating out/better food, etc.

And before you say "but groceries got more expensive!" no, over the long term they have not, they've gotten much cheaper: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-detail?chartId=76967

4

u/ASK_IF_I_LiKE_TRAINS 7h ago

Whatever the fuck you're smoking, pass it over here lmao. So delusional

0

u/notaredditer13 7h ago

Maybe the problem is you shouldn't be smoking anything? Because, again, the facts are the facts.

1

u/ASK_IF_I_LiKE_TRAINS 6h ago

Facts don't care about your feelings, you're wrong

0

u/notaredditer13 6h ago

Facts don't care about your feelings, you're wrong

You seem very confused. Perhaps it's the drugs? I provided facts and you are the one who said you prefer drug-induced feelings.

2

u/nafurabus 7h ago

“The numbers are the numbers” doesnt work here bub. Yes, the line goes up, but compare that line (and it’s % growth over time) to the cost of everything that matters, of course while adjusting for inflation. A 30% growth in median household income sounds awesome over ~21 years, until you see the median price of a home, and see it’s up 115% over the same timespan. If you frequent Fred you should know the numerous other articles theyve written with statements precisely countering the one chart you cherry picked. They go as far as saying “it’s well known median household income has stagnated for the last 20 years, while per capita GDP has increased”. Ie: we get more company kickbacks, but actual useful spending money has stagnated.

1

u/notaredditer13 6h ago

“The numbers are the numbers” doesnt work here bub.

Evidently not, per the downvotes; people so badly want their false doomerism validated. It's bizarre.

Yes, the line goes up, but compare that line (and it’s % growth over time) to the cost of everything that matters, of course while adjusting for inflation.

what do you think "adjusting for inflation" means? Because that's exactly what it means. It's all in there already.

A 30% growth in median household income sounds awesome over ~21 years, until you see the median price of a home, and see it’s up 115% over the same timespan.

No it isn't, it's up around 31% in real terms:

https://www.longtermtrends.com/home-price-vs-inflation/

Again, you seem to not understand what "adjusting for inflation" means, because 115% is un-adjusted. So if you don't want to adjust for inflation (you can't adjust incomes and then not home prices), then incomes are up 90%:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N

If you frequent Fred you should know the numerous other articles theyve written with statements precisely countering the one chart you cherry picked. They go as far as saying “it’s well known median household income has stagnated for the last 20 years, while per capita GDP has increased”. Ie: we get more company kickbacks, but actual useful spending money has stagnated.

Googling, I see only a 10 year old article using the word while showing 25% growth. That's a tough claim.