Social Problem! Did the Flintstones have it easier?

1. 72

   tsmogposted 3 weeks ago

   Not a political rant. Not a nostalgic sigh. Just a quiet alarm.
   
   Note: For image clarity, right click on image then select open image in new tab
   
   Estimated % of 30 Year-Olds who are both married and home owners Source: Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene Facebook Post (Aug 3)
   
   
   1950 → 2020 / High % is 50% and low is 15%. Increments are 5 points.
   
   A preliminary question for reflection of not only you, but your children, grandchildren, extended family, and friends. Where do you or they fall onto the infographic?
   
   Let’s take a short walk?
   
   Only 12% of 30-year-olds today are married, have children, and own a home.
   In 1980, that number was 45%. In 1960, it was 60%.
   The trifecta—marriage, family, home—is now a statistical anomaly.
   
   But this isn’t about “values.” It’s about viability. Whose?
   
   Millennials and Gen Z are having their first children later—typically around age 30. Yet the median age for first-time homebuyers has climbed to 35. The nesting instinct is intact, but the nest is missing.
   
   Why?
   
   Is it about the Benjamins? The neighborhood? A generational thing?
   
   ** Home prices have outpaced wages.
   
   ** In blue states, the median home value is 91% higher than in red states. The buck goes farther in red states, generally. Blue states garner greater wealth.
   
   ** Gen Z carries an average debt of $94,000, which is more than millennials at the same age.
   
   ** Rust Belt cities like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati see higher rates of young buyers, while coastal metros price them out.
   
   Is it a question of the impact of liberty?
   
   
   
   Negative liberty says you're free to try. Positive liberty asks whether you’re free to succeed.
   
   So what do we do with this?
   
   We could blame the market. Or the culture. Or the politics.
   But maybe we ask: What kind of freedom do we want to cultivate?
   
   If liberty is only the absence of interference, then the market is doing its job.
   But if liberty includes the presence of opportunity, then we’ve got work to do.
   
   Freedom to dream is not the same as freedom to dwell
   
   This isn’t a call to arms. It’s a call to awareness.
   
   Children are still being born.
   Dreams are still being dreamt.
   But the soil beneath them is shifting.
   
   Thoughts, accolades, criticisms, and/or commentary?

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      What would Fred do in the face of a Trumpstone?
      
      Flintstones or the Jetsons, both of these was a mirror image of social mores during the 1960s and the animators assumed regardless of technology or lack of same, that this model would be always be a fit.
      
      Blue states, urban areas have higher standards of living with better jobs and more opportunity. the red states that boast of modest costs of living will lose that advantage under the simple principle of supply and demand. Texas is now cheaper than California, for now.
      
      My personal opinion is that the concept of marriage as a social construct is a liability, who can say that love conquers all, anymore? In a turbulent world, with Republicans dangerously on the prowl, who can afford to find themselves in a vulnerable Position?
      
      What if Fred or George needed to join a union in the face of cheapskate bosses? What if Judy got pregnant or Pebbles colic? Would Wilma or Jane even consider work outside of their homes? These characters lived a bubble bliss not even possible to day. You brought out funny mind pictures for me to contemplate.
      
      I say liberty cannot be less than the presence of opportunity for all, otherwise we just as well capitulate to the idea of a caste system. In the current political climate, it IS a call to arms.

      replyreport