Political Memes

parent

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

parent

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Wish this would be adjusted for age. Obviously someone who had more time to accumulate wealth will have more wealth. The real question is how much wealth does each generation have at the same age.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] uis@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Then why Silent has so little?

parent

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago*

It's extremely simple. How many people are alive born before 1946? Not many compared to the other generations. Their wealth went to their boomer children.

parent

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I am working off of one bar and have no electricity but this research has been done. I think pew has it, but it might be at ITAR

parent

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

It also matters at the time, as that's a form of power. Guess who can donate seriously to political campaigns, for example.

parent

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

True. Question is a bit how much wealth is in things and how much in money - some boomer owning a nice house and a vacation home is very wealthy, but might not necessarily have the liquidity to donate if they live on some relatively small pension.

parent

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1376620/wealth-distribution-for-the-us/

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago

(and time, don't forget time)

parent

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Well this here GenXer wishes he could have some of that wealth. Unless 'have a mortgage' constitutes wealth.

parent

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Mortgage? No. Equity in a house? Yes.

parent

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Equity in a house is not all that helpful when the house is in an undesirable town in an undesirable state.

parent

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

My point is just that a mortgage is debt while equity is an asset, so I don't think you should consider a mortgage wealth.

parent

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago

Oh, I see. Yes, I agree.

parent

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

It actually does. The amount paid off at least, since the property is the wealth.

parent

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Considering how little we're going to get back when we sell it within the next few months before fleeing to the UK, I would say that I don't think it's wealth.

parent

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Isn't the UK politics pretty similar to US?

parent

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

In the sense that the UK isn't likely to force my queer daughter into a conversion camp in the near future, no.

parent

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I would say it's roughly equally likely

parent

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Right, because Labour, (and the Tories and the Lib Dems) are all totally homophobic just like Republicans.

What the fuck are you talking about?

parent

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I'm just saying that I think this particular fear you have is roughly equally likely. Maybe the likelihood of it happening in the US is double or triple than the UK, but I think that would put the likelihood only from 0.01% to 0.03%, so basically the same.

Forcing queers (~8% of the population) in re-education camps would incite riots. They won't do it.

parent

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Did you listen to the King's speech this year? I doubt it.

Did you know that the King's speech lays out government policy? I also doubt it.

Did you know that the King's speech this year included making conversion therapy illegal? I really doubt it.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., there's project 2025 and prominent republicans literally calling for trans genocide.

Forcing queers (~8% of the population) in re-education camps would incite riots. They won’t do it.

Yeah, remember how that happened in Germany in the 1930s when queer people were put in camps and then there was a big riot and they all got freed? No, neither do I.

Remember how it wasn't even legal to be queer in America until 2003? I do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_history_in_the_United_States

parent

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago

You're picturing some movies instead of laws, police, prisons. Perhaps they'll take some inspiration from Putin: https://theconversation.com/putins-russia-first-arrests-under-new-anti-lgbt-laws-mark-new-era-of-repression-226864

These are the legal approaches. The other one is violent assholes murdering queers and then getting away with it somehow. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense

You need to broaden your understanding of dystopian horizons.

parent

[–] frezik@midwest.social 11 points 2 years ago

This is why I've been saying that we can't expect the population to simply age out of conservatism. If that worked, it would have happened generations ago. Perhaps as far back as "cooking food over fire is making kids these days weak".