peace out
Spend their retirement calling the cafeteria staff at Luby’s racial slurs and saying trans kids and drag queens are evil.
And voting for people that will make everyone’s life hell and ensure that no one else will ever get to experience the quality of life that they did.
Not to sound ageist, but I firmly believe voting privileges should be revoked when you retire.
If you need to wait 18 years to vote you shouldn’t be able to vote once you are 18 years from average life expectancy (as in life expectancy is 80, you can vote until you’re 62, not after).
Imagine how much focus would be put on healthcare if that were the case…
Dumb and arbitrary, just how we like it!
If it works one way it should work the other way as well! You’re too young to be responsible enough to vote? Then you can be too old to care enough about the future to vote!
A quick google says the US is 77 years, add 18 to that and you’re already way too high. 77 is geriatric, just like everyone complained about the last and current US presidents.
Or… did you mean ‘from’ as in below? That would make more sense. Early 60s isn’t too old though.
Yes, I meant 18 years after birth = 18 years before average age of death, so politicians would need to either reduce 18 to something lower or would have to work to increase life expectancy.
I would think that removing the barriers to voting that affect younger voters is the better option, along with getting rid of the electoral college and allowing felons to vote. Taking away voting rights for certain classes of citizens is a slippery slope, especially when the root problem is some votes count more than others and many potential votes never make it to the polls.
I’m not sure about voting but probably about being elected
they way leaders emerge from certain personalities, and get so corrupted, i think we’d be better off with random selection.
THIS is the way. Make political service be similar to jury duty.
“no taxation without representation”
I wonder if you’ll still firmly believe that when you retire.
I don’t trust anyone with one foot in the grave to make long term decisions that benefit young people more than themselves any more than I trust a small child to make sound logical laws about bedtime.
Well we all vote in our own best interests, as I’m sure you do too. The art of good governance is to provide an environment in which everyone can thrive.
The problem here is not old people who don’t vote in your best interest, it’s the government that aren’t ensuring everyone is catered for.
They didn’t just pull up the ladder behind them, they have a ladder propulsion system that will launch it into space
I’m at least relieved to not have lead poisoning, for my gay brother to be safely out, and for my interracial marriage to not be scorned by the community.
Honestly, at this point I’m just waiting for trump to bring back leaded gas.
Yet.
Kind of shows that time is a circle
I see it more as a muddy hill. Only in the US some people have now shat upon that hill with the greasiest, nastiest shit so the slide is even worse on this length.
What about Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam and the fact that ptsd was treated with electrical shocks or drilling holes in your brain
Also constant threat of global nuclear annihilation
That hasn’t gone anywhere though although the media doesn’t keep drumming about it as much I guess
Also lead in the air
Apparently hurt people also disappoint people
Absolutely. It’s no coincidence that many of the people who committed atrocities in WW2 had lived through the trench wars of WW1.
Would have been nice if younger folks had voted in their own interests.
Always someone else’s fault, never yours
Why should they vote? No one is actually representing them.
Because they don’t vote…
If your demographic is (correctly) viewed as being made up of nonvoters, then politicians are never going to pander to you no matter how much you whine online.
it’s a hard truth so many fail to realize. small inconvenience to clam your views.
Wonder why that is
Two party system. One party is neoliberal ultracapitalists, the other is racist mysoginist neoliberal ultracapitalists.
Stating the raw value of the house will only make naysayers throw inflation into your face.
The better way of saying that would be,
buy a detached SFH for only 4× annual minimum wage
Like, really drive it home how absolutely unaffordable homes are these days. In my corner of Canada, the median detached SFH is going for 28× minimum wage, and it’s 32× if it’s new construction. My own 1972 split level sold brand-new for only 4× the 1972 minimum wage.
Jesus in today money that’s 60k for a house. For a nice hours our parents bought
A quick way of estimating annual wage for a full-time position is to take hourly, double it, then move the decimal point to the right by three spots.
So for example, the BC minimum wage is $17.40. Double that is $34.80. Annually in a full-time job, that’s about $34,800 before taxes.
And 4× that is $139,200. Current median SFH prices for used homes sit at just under $1M in my podunk tourist town. All detached SFH, $1,200,000. New construction, $1,500,000.
I mean, really - who under 50 can actually afford those prices without intergenerational wealth to give them a leg up in life?
Suburban SFHs should be outrageously expensive. They are an unsustainable model with huge externalities. They were artificially cheaper for previous generations due to the tax shell game they run on us all. They are a part of the reason the current generation is under water.
And it pisses me off that “externality” is STILL not in my spelling dict in 2025.
Also median detached sfh in the 70s was probably closer to 1200 sq ft. No builder is going to do anything less than a McMansion these days
My own home was 2,000ft² when built. In 1972. That was the Canadian average at the time, as most homes built by developers were made with the same 15 (or so) floor plans with slight variations.
You’re thinking of the 50s. Those homes were indeed around 1,200ft², and there is even a pair in my neighbourhood the next block over
And 2000 sq ft is still quaint by building stands from the 00s. Now if you want 2000 sq ft you’re looking at 3 stories of attached townhouse condo
You can throw the inflation right back at them. Boomers were born into the Bretton Woods system, started borrowing from us in the 1970s, and then kept voting for lower taxes on the wealthy.
Old people used to complain about inflation frequently because they experienced a stable dollar for decades… until the Nixon Shock.
Just shows you how low minimum wage is.
It’s not just low minimum wage, although BC’s is currently the third highest in Canada.
No, the problem is also “investors” that buy on spec only to sell at a much higher price just before completion, as well as “investors” that buy up 5, 10, 15 or even more homes for rental income. Both of these goose home values into the stratosphere and massively constrain the supply of homes that are affordable to those wanting to stop being renters.
Were it not for “investors”, homes would likely be half or even less than what they currently are.
Then rent is also twice as expensive as needed.
The supply has to increase. Since politicians won’t organize public housing, renters could organize it on their own.
“single family home” means more than “detached sfh”
Shoutout to our parents for hitting an absolute timeline sweet-spot. Drop in right after a world war, have a bunch of weird sex before HIV, buy a house for like 20.000€, start a family, retire young and peace out right before the ocean kills us.
We’re a 1950’s 91% top-tier tax rate away from the same.
It’s amazing how often this gets mentioned. In truth almost nobody paid that tax rate because it applied only to salaries. Rich people have always gotten most of their income from capital gains (which were taxed at a low rate in the 1950s, just like today).
It applies to income, not salaries, and it applies to corporate income as well as personal income. Nobody needs to pay it for it to achieve its purpose. Indeed, nobody should be paying it, ever.
You have a choice. I’ll give you $900 for you to do anything you want with. Alternatively, I’ll give you $10,000, but you can only spend it on something that you can convince me is something you need for your business.
You can buy $900 of GOOG, or you can spend $10,000 on a bunch of electronics. You can buy $900 of AAPL, or spend $10,000 “entertaining clients” at a strip club.
You can buy $900 worth of stocks, or purchase goods and services produced by workers.
Nobody is taking the $900 here. Everyone is taking the $10,000. Nobody is paying 91% on $10,000 over the line. You can get much more value from your large “business” spending than you can get from your small investment.
Now, if the numbers are $6300 on anything, or $10,000 on business, a lot of people are going to take the $6300. This is a top-tier of 37%.
$7500 on anything, or $10,000 on business, most people are going to take the $7500. This is a top-tier of 25%.
The 91% tax rate isn’t for the government to spend more money. The 91% tax rate is to ensure the richest among us get greater value from hiring workers than they do from buying securities.
You frame it like those are the only two choices. They aren’t. The third choice is capital flight.
People constantly forget that governments don’t have godlike tax enforcement powers. In the real world people avoid taxes via a million different avenues. Absconding with their money for greener pastures is a last resort but it happens constantly.
Take China for example. Taxes are way lower than the US yet capital flight is such a huge problem that the government has enacted Capital controls. Yet capital flight from China continues largely unabated.
So what this means in practice is that if you want to have a 91% top corporate tax rate in the US without a gargantuan capital flight problem you’re going to need a government that is way more powerful and draconian than either the US or China is right now.
Now you might say “what if I just let everyone go and get the money back when they try to sell things to the US?” Well that’s basically what the US under Trump is doing right now, via tariffs. But then you tack on the capital flight beforehand and that means all the big companies, all the great jobs, leave the country before prices skyrocket. This is how you impoverish the US to third world status.
Do you have an alternative suggestion to tackle the issues that such a high tax rate tries to address? I’m just genuinely curious.
If by issues you mean wealth distribution and the existence of an ultra-rich, powerful class, no. I don’t have a solution to that. The fundamental problem is that wealth brings power and the concentration of wealth and power in fewer hands brings other benefits, namely: coordination.
Smaller groups nearly always have an easier time coordinating their efforts than larger groups, so smaller groups tend to have a disadvantage unless they’re on the battlefield (and even then, wealthy well-supplied small groups of soldiers easily defeat large groups of poorly-equipped, poorly-trained peasants).
The big problem with the high-tax approach is that it’s a class warfare strategy. Apart from the communist revolutions of the 20th century, the history of class warfare has not gone well for the non-rich side. I think that moment in history was a unique one and unlikely to be repeated, barring the unforeseen appearance of some new decentralized warfare technology.
So where does that leave us? We can try non-class-warfare strategies. We want to align the interests of everyone, rich and poor, towards a common goal: peace, prosperity, and sustainability. Why would the rich want this? Because life is better that way! It’s much nicer to live in a safe, walkable, integrated, and prosperous community than it is to live in a walled compound surrounded by ghettos.
Because life is better that way! It’s much nicer to live in a safe, walkable, integrated, and prosperous community than it is to live in a walled compound surrounded by ghettos.
💯
Selfish rich people should be properly selfish and make the world better so they don’t have to be grossed out by poors. Or worry about heli skiing becoming impossible one day. Be selfish richies!
Hey economists love VAT I hear?
I’m reminded by the story I once read about Eritrea, a country with wealthy enclaves for the royal family plus foreign petro-engineers. The enclaves have these walls along the road with vast ghettos on the other side.
It’s a miserable place. The engineers tend not to stay long. Just make a lot of money in a short time period and then leave.
You frame it like those are the only two choices. They aren’t.
No, I provided a simplistic, informal explanation, not a conclusive evaluation.
The third choice is capital flight.
Let the parasites leave. That’s the point. They are sucking the working class dry, and we would be better off without them.
Your argument operates under the assumption that a member of the current ownership class needs to be involved for a business to be successful. That is simply untrue. They aren’t the component enabling employment. They are the parasite leeching our productivity.
The reality is that the most prosperous era of American history was made under a 91% tax rate, specifically because such a tax rate drives capital into the control of the working class.
A third choice is capital flight. there are even more choices, including but are not limited to creative accounting to hide revenue and assets, or bribing -er I mean supporting politicians in exchange for writing loopholes into the tax code.
Yes. Capital flight is one of the last resort moves, as I said. Take your money with you and leave the hostile country.
EXACTLY! I found something so defeated and defeatist about this thread UNTIL I read your comment.
This was once a reality!
Why do we not have it now?
Obviously an extremely nuanced question but clearly part of that is that even the obscenely wealthy were forced to realize that obscene wealth destroys more than it builds.
They should be called generation G for hitting that sweet spot.
Yeah, my mother was able to earn a bachelor’s degree (iirc? either that or an associates), paying for it by working as a cashier at McDonalds.
The fucking eighties, man.
My anger as I approach my thirties, unable to afford college even when I was working full time (before I lost my job), can not be overstated.
You can still do that if you live in a first world country… Yes, I’m implying what I’m implying.
Lemmy, every 5 seconds:
guys are you aware the united states sucks
guys
guysI don’t think you’re aware
the US sucks
guys
listen
hey
the US sucks
did you know that?
guyssssss
like, yes, I get it, we suck, but also it’s exhausting being unable to emigrate anywhere and being constantly reminded of how much suck I get to endure for the rest of forever.
And dint forget, no matter who you voted for you’re still a dirty American and FUCK YOU for existing at a time when your country sucks more than usual. It doesn’t matter how you voted or what your beliefs are.
And also if you can’t move out of the country it’s your fault for not… Something. I guess.
And also depending on what community you’re in, SUPER FUCK YOU for deciding to leave your country instead of fixing it.
And of course, as we can already see, every single shortcoming of your country is CLEARLY your fault or at the very least you deserve to be punished for your country being shitty in any way, whether it started long before you were born or not.
That’s what happens when your country won’t shut up about how great they are. Or rather, won’t shut up full stop.
“USA! USA! USA! NUMBER ONE!” Is so fucking annoying, of course non-Americans remind you you’re only number one in percentage of the population in prison.
America is a shit country that feeds its population “patriotic” propaganda from the day they are born until the day they die. You literally make a pledge every day at school. That’s cult behaviour.
Lemmy just opens your eyes to the rest of the world, where you’re no longer in the bubble of America. Lemmy isn’t the problem, you’re just finally hearing the voices of those outside the USA, unfiltered.
This is from Scotland, in 1983, the sentiment now hasn’t changed much.
I’m sorry that this comment is so harsh because you’re just tryna live your life and already sound down about being told how shit your country is. But Americans need reminded that we don’t “hate ya cuz we ain’t ya” or jealous or whatever, as a nation you’re just insufferably obnoxious and commit heinous crimes whilst making out you’re the saviour of the world, the good guys, the world police. When you’re institutionally arseholes. You won’t even submit to international criminal courts or uphold most human rights. America is a bully nation that is finally reaping what it’s sown.
If you’re an American reading this and you’re fucking fuming at what I’ve said and want to throw hands, good. Use that anger to create positive change in this world. Organise unions, strike in solidarity, stand up for others, become politically active, change your country for the better. Stop enabling greedy consumerist behaviour and excusing rapists, racists, and murderers. You may just be one person, what can you do? But I’m just some dude on the other side of the planet having a bored rant whilst taking a shit and I’ve managed to get you to read all this. Do something to improve your community, encourage others to do the same, many many incremental changes combined can make a large difference. Finally fucking live up to the tagline “land of the brave”, because you sure as shit don’t deserve it so far.
Yeah, most Americans are generally not into the “USA USA USA” cult-like behavior of it all. Most of us are just regular people working shitty jobs to pay for shitty places to live. And all the grandstanding and “Do something!” from your rant is extremely disingenuous to the people are fucking doing something. Just because you don’t hear about it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. And you’re kind of an asshole for generalizing a whole people like that.
Tl;Dr you’re just defending the act of kicking people when they’re down
Woah. You take very long shits.
And then bitch and moan when anything doesn’t go absolutely perfectly in their favor.
Also flying to Vietnam for a government paid vacation when they were 18 years old.
Shhhh, the primary social media population wants to believe life was a breeze until they came along.
There was no oil crisis, no cold war, no economic crash in the 80s, no housing shortage in the 80s, no rampant crime!
The 70/80s where glorious!
/Sssss
We didn’t start the fire
I definitely enjoyed myself, more in the 80s than the 70s (which seemed largely like the record industry still trying to milk money out of the 60s).
Well if you enjoyed the 80s soooo much then a) you where too young to grasp the problems facing your parents or b) you where too well off.
Just look at the cinema and listen to the music of my fine period.
Everything, every theme was: please dont kill us and can i have a room to call my own.
The politics where insane, mortgage rates of 10-15% where the norm, enormous economic shifts.
The 90s where fun but the eighties where, in my experience, very, very dark.
Ever listened to, I dunno, two tribes, war, dancing with tears in my eyes, Russians, etc.? Those first albums of u2? Really grasped what Terminator was about? Wall Street? Or the much lighter but still terribly fucked Trading Places?
It was all really dark stuff, my brother. Fun, but very dark.
I was a regular guy in my 20s/30s working as a computer programmer, living in a house with roommates and doing a lot of theatre. Amazingly there were more than your two possibilities, and I would hazard a guess that there are even more. LPT: simplistic binary thinking makes people boring.
Yep, regular guy in the 80s doing programming.
Thats even now not so regular, that was very special and very high paying back then.
So amazingly, you being in your 70s (80s where 40 years ago after all) now and still unable to really fathom, comprehend, how very very good you probably still have it compared to others is telling enough. And that was one of the two binary options i gave for the 80s: too young too comprehend, too rich to care. You clearly fell and probably still fall in the latter category.
Not a lot 70+ year olds on Lemmy btw.
That all, combined with the use of the lpt acronym makes me doubt your age. That, or i’m talking to a llm.
Binary is boring that is true. It also has a 50% chance of being right the first time.
Obviously you know my life better at a glance than I do, having lived it. Meme-level thinking at its best! Take in minimal information, make a value judgement based almost entirely on preconceptions, and scroll on to the next item. This is why we have Trump (again) - because too many people dismissed all the issues as simple good/evil decisions so they could get back to entertaining themselves.
It was kind of a breeze in comparison to now, no? My dad bought his first house for $37,000 when the average salary was $15,000. I just bought a house and couldn’t find one within an hour for under $420,000… The average salary around here is apparently $55,000
Valid point that life was cheaper than it is now (and also a lot more expensive than when my parents were my age). But that whole time is weirdly misrepresented like it was a walk in the part, ignoring the massive social upheaval over race issues, women’s rights, the Vietnam War, pollution, Nixon and many other things. There was also the Cold War keeping us in constant fear of World War 3. My school had air raid practice FFS. Life wasn’t a party, it was just less expensive.
But is it also the average household salary? Most boomers were single income. Then in the late eighties early nineties people realized that you could get higher mortgages in a double income, and as a result houses got a lot more expensive. Also, interest rates have declined a lot since the eighties, which also allowed people to borrow more.
That just adds to my point? It doesn’t matter why it happened, housing is significantly more expensive compared to income. But since you brought it up, let’s do the math.
$15,000 average salary, single income, $37,000 house. That’s about 30 months salary.
$55,000 average salary, dual income ($110,000), $420,000 house. That’s 45 months salary. With both people working.
So…yeah, seems like “the basics” are a lot harder to achieve nowadays than they were in the 80s.
I really wouldn’t know if that last statement is true. We were only discussing housing, so not all of the basics. Also, like I said earlier, interest rates on mortgages were higher in the past. I would also consider this when comparing, because the interest can be more than total debt.
Interest rates peaked in '81 at 18% and yes that brings it closer to today’s % of income…but it plummeted within a few years.
And housing/mortgage stuff isn’t the only part in this equation - the bottom 90% of the country has been getting significantly less for their labor since Reagan. Money is hoarded and wages have not kept up with inflation
It’s also forgetting the Korean war, and several smaller wars in between (Panama, Honduras).
Vietnam was bad, but don’t forget so easily that we only just got out of the longest running war the US was ever been in, and it wasn’t Boomers or Gen X fighting in it. It spanned two generations. Now, because there US just can’t not be involved in a conflict, we’re casting about trying to find a good enemy; I think the next one will be with a developed country. We’ve realized that we don’t do so well with insurgencies, so maybe Russia or China. Or, maybe India and Pakistan will finish everything for us! They both have nukes, and China isn’t just going to sit there while they trade nukes across the border.
Anyway, it’s a little depressing that y’all have already written off the 800,000 veterans who fought in Afghanistan as being unworthy of notice.
The Korean War “ended” in 1953 the oldest boomer would have been 7 year olds, about half of them were the right age for Vietnam but even with that only about 2.7m served in some capacity for the Vietnam war with a lot in non combat roles there were 76m baby boom era so less than 4%
Fair comment about the Korean war; I incorrectly mentally lump it together with the Vietnam war as part of the general “war on communism,” and it wasn’t the boomers.
If you want to nitpick in that area, US soldiers in the Middle East over the past 30 years have all been enlistees, average age around 30. The average age of US soldiers in Vietnam was 19, most of whom were drafted. No American high school students since 1973 have had to watch lottery balls on TV decide whether they get sent to war.
Life has always been a struggle, but it truly feels hopeless being 20 something given the current state of the world. There’s some days where I spend 80% of the day consumed by suicidal thoughts.
A lot of boomers missed Vietnam as even in 1975 some boomers were only 11 years old
Those from the actual baby boom right after WW2 weren’t
Less than 4% of boomers served in Vietnam.
This kind of seems like a meaningless statistic without some more context (such as what % of US citizens were boomers, and what % of US citizens served in Vietnam). On its own, it doesn’t really say anything.
I think a more useful statistic would be the percent of people who served in Vietnam that were boomers.
It matters because if you are going to say that a defining factor of that generation is that they went to Vietnam when less than 1/25 people did it’s misleading. It’s like saying that a defining factor of millennials was being in nyc when the twin towers went down
Fair enough… I wasn’t the one who said that, and I do not agree. Vietnam itself was a defining factor of the generation, but not “going to Vietnam”
Those would be gen X.
Baby boomers are 1946-1964 Gen X is 1965-1980 Gen Y is 1981-1996 Gen Z is 1997-2012 Gen alpha is 2013- present
It’s all made up horse shit to draw lines between us. People don’t neatly fit into a line or graph and it’s really lame people keep repeating this crap.
It’s not some complicated plot to drive conflict… it’s literally just a metric that has turned out to be somewhat useful as we can talk about what major life events different generations experienced at what approximate age.
For example most Gen Y was a teen when 9/11 happened and most Gen X was a teen when the challenger explosion happened and most boomers were a teen when we landed on the moon
I don’t blame old people, they lived the best of times, their lives were comfortable because they were in a boom. They had high hopes, had kids with a bright future in mind for them, but things change, some see it, others are oblivious to it.
I 100% blame them for pulling the ladder up behind them.
If the roles switched we’d probably do the same.
Yeah, no. Speak for yourself please.
I already have so much less opportunity than the average boomer, and I’m still not doing that. Because I’m not a piece of shit. It’s really not difficult.
It’s still fair to blame them. Old people blame young people for everything afterall.
My parents don’t, well not completely. They know the world be screwed up, but they also think there’s a degree of responsibility on my part too. We are all stuck in this shit show together, and old people thought they’d be dead long before it got really really bad, but Trump SA’d the money, and now we all get to suffer.
I’d keep friends and loved ones close.
it’s not “things change” all the current mess was created by them in the decades after the time period of the op tweet
A lot of the world’s problems are generally made by the greed of mankind in general.
Spend all of their own parents inheritance, leave nothing for their own kids, talk about how they had to work their way up from nothing.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-370.html
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1980
Boomers weren’t the ones who elected Reagan, they were at most 35 at the time.
That’s the president that started to fuck things up and it was just the same as usual, older people being more conservative, younger people not showing up to vote.
Both your links gave me 404 errors
They were almost all able to vote in 1980 at 16- 34, and made up a large portion of the population then in 84 they were all able to vote and saw what actions he took the previous election and voted for him more…
Copypaste for you:
How Groups Voted in 1980
1980 Group Carter Reagan Anderson TOTAL All Voters Pct. 41% 51% 8% SEX Men 51 38 55 7 Women 49 46 47 7 RACE White 88 36 56 8 African-American 10 83 14 3 Hispanic 2 56 37 7 AGE 18-21 6 45 44 11 22-29 17 44 44 11 30-44 31 38 55 7 45-59 23 39 55 6 60 & over 18 41 55 4 INCOME <$10,000 13 52 42 6 $10 -14,999 14 48 43 8 $15-24,999 30 39 54 7 $25-50,000 24 33 59 8 >$50,000 5 26 66 8 UNION HOUSEHOLD Yes 26 48 45 7 No 62 36 56 8 REGION East 32 44 48 8 Midwest 20 42 52 6 South 27 45 52 3 West 11 36 54 10 PARTY Democrat 43 67 27 6 Republican 28 11 85 4 Independent 23 31 56 13 POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Liberal 17 60 28 1 Moderate 46 43 49 8 Conservative 28 23 73 4 Notes: Survey by CBS News and the New York Times. Sample of 15,201 voters as they left voting booths on Election Day, November 4, 1980. “Don’t know” and “other” responses not included.
And then in 1984 they voted for Reagan even more
Don’t know why the links don’t work 🤷
If you look at the actual numbers you realize that it’s the people that were older that voted in majority for Reagan and the % of registered electors and voters was higher for older populations.
Voting and Registration in the Election of November 1980
Within Data April 1982
Report Number: P20-370
- Table 1. Reported Voting and Registration, by Single Years of Age and Sex [<1.0 MB]
- !Table 2. Reported Voting and Registration, by Race, Spanish Origin, Sex, and Age, for the United States and Regions [<1.0 MB]
- Table 3. Reported Voting and Registration, by Race, Spanish Origin, and Metropolitan-Nonmetropolitan Residence, for the United States and Regions [<1.0 MB]
- Table 4. Reported Voting and Registration, by Race, Spanish Origin, and Age, for Divisions [<1.0 MB]
- Table 5. Reported Voting and Registration, by Race and Spanish Origin, for States [<1.0 MB]
- Table 6. Reported Voting and Registration, by Race and Spanish Origin, for 30 Selected Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas [<1.0 MB]
- Table 7. Reported Voting and Registration of Primary Family Householders, by Race, Spanish Origin, Age, Tenure, and Presence of Own Children Under 18 Years [<1.0 MB]
- Table 8. Reported Voting and Registration, by Race, Spanish Origin, Age, Sex, and Marital Status [<1.0 MB]
- Table 9. Reported Voting of Husbands and Wives in Primary Married-Couple Families, by Selected Characteristics [<1.0 MB]
- Table 10. Reported Voting and Registration, by Race, Spanish Origin, Age, Sex, and Years of School Completed [<1.0 MB]
- Table 11. Reported Voting and Registration, by Race, Spanish Origin, Sex, Age, Employment Status, and Class of Worker [<1.0 MB]
- Table 12. Reported Voting and Registration, by Race, Spanish Origin, Sex, and Major Occupation Group [<1.0 MB]
- Table 13. Reported Voting and Registration of Primary Family Members, by Race, Spanish Origin, Age, and Family Income [<1.0 MB]
- Table 14. Reported Voting and Registration of Primary Family Members, by Race, Spanish Origin, Age, Duration of Residence, and Tenure [<1.0 MB]
- Table 15. Reported Voting in 1980 and 1976 of Persons 22 Years Old and Over, by Race, Spanish Origin, Sex, and Age [<1.0 MB]
- Table 16. Reported Voting in 1980 and 1976 of Persons 22 Years Old and Over, by Race, Spanish Origin, Sex, and Years of School Completed [<1.0 MB]
- Table 17. Reported Reason for Not Voting, for Persons Who Reported Registering But Not Voting, by Race, Spanish Origin, Sex, and Age [<1.0 MB]
- Table 18. Reported Reason for Not Voting, for Persons Who Reported Registering But Not Voting, by Race, Spanish Origin, Sex, Employment Status, Class of Worker, and Major Occupation Group [<1.0 MB]
- Table 19. Reported Reason for Not Registering to Vote, by Race, Spanish Origin, Sex, and Age [<1.0 MB]
- Table 20. Reported Reason for Not Registering to Vote, by Race, Spanish Origin, Sex, Employment Status, Class of Worker, and Major Occupation Group [<1.0 MB]
- Table 21. Reported Voting for a Presidential Candidate and Method of Voting, by Race, Spanish Origin, Sex, and Age [<1.0 MB]
- Table 22. Reporting on Voting and Registration, by Race, Spanish Origin, Sex, and Type of Respondent [<1.0 MB]
I will not stand for this Nixon erasure
I would still take my life over my mom’s. Things were not good for women back then.
Things can always backslide
Did she starve to death? Because that’s our current timeline
It’s getting comparable… women are being charged with murder for totally natural miscarriages. Imagine ending up in prison for decades for something you had absolutely no control over.
And women are also dying from preventable issues with pregnancy, because it is illegal for doctors to remove fetuses even when they are a direct threat to the mother’s life (ectopic) or even totally dead in the first place.
America is becoming exceedingly hostile to anyone not white, cis, and male.
If it makes you feel any better it still feels pretty hostile to me as well.
I agree that things were bad back then but my point is things are about to become much much worse. We will all be looking back wishing we could go back in time. Our future is bleak and you’ll be lucky to not starve to death in the coming years.
America alone is going to be in immense economic pain starting some time within the next 3-9 months. Shipping into America from China is dropping off a cliff, with a nearly 40% all sources drop in port activity on the west coast at this time. Seattle alone has seen a 60+% drop in Chinese shipping.
2025 is going to be an absolute economic bloodbath for most any American citizen inside America.
Well she was around before birth control was legal or widely available, and before abortion was legal. Yeah I agree the US is getting more hostile but nobody at my work is asking me to get the coffee, or saying women can’t do the job. And she raised 4 kids while doing a dissertation, widowed when the youngest was not even a teen yet.
I don’t think now is great but it’s better in a lot of ways.
There’s a lot of people who resent that things ever changed for women, and have spent every moment since trying to put things back to the way they were. I’ve worked for a lot of them. I’ve definitely been expected to get coffee, been told not to speak to male coworkers unless absolutely necessary, been told that I dressed too well and it was tempting male coworkers to sin, been told there was something mentally wrong with me because I didn’t “take care of myself” by wearing more makeup, been blamed for work conflicts I wasn’t involved in because I should’ve been the peacemaker. All in the last 10 years. But, yeah, I’m glad I can use birth control legally.
Holy crap! That is dreadful. I have not worked anywhere that backwards. “Not to speak to male coworkers?”. Did you work for the Mike Pence campaign or something? What did the other women in the workplace think?
I did get paid less than the guys I worked with in the early 1990s, literally because they were men. But not since. We have female VP of Finance, female Financial Controller, I’d say it’s 75/25 still in the top so not equal, but about half our operational managers are women, and I work in sports, that doesn’t seem a wildly progressive industry.
It was a legal office that was part of a well-known insurance company. The manager was a conservative Catholic. He believed that a man and a woman speaking to each other too much was “basically the same as sex”. He told me it was acceptable to speak to men if I absolutely had to, but I needed to say what was necessary and then stop talking. He accused me of having sexual affairs with multiple coworkers, literally for speaking to them too often, conversations going on for too long, going out for lunch together, etc. Normal coworkerly behavior.
Since interacting with them would be “infidelity”, he ignored the female attorneys in the office. He’d invite all the male attorneys out to a nice restaurant for lunch while all the women ate a bag lunch in their offices, etc. They couldn’t stand him. He was nice to the support staff, but I think in his eyes, they were “good women”: married with kids, Catholic, subservient towards him.
He thought I was horrible because I lived with a boyfriend, didn’t want kids, wasn’t religious, etc. I tried to have an adult conversation about it where I told him I respected his beliefs, but I didn’t share them, and it wasn’t his place as a manager to punish me for not sharing his religious beliefs. But, he insisted it had nothing to do with religion.
The company’s attitude was that he was the manager, so I had to do what he told me to do. 🙄
