Gold Kiwi said:
JulieW said:
I think we're already a fair way down that track.
For example in 1968 my father earned about $70 a week, ran a car, paid for a house about 12k from the CBD, had a non-working wife and 2 kids and managed to save enough for us to rent a holiday house for a 4 week holiday each year.
In the balance, I'm coming to think that the 'good old days' were just that.
Back in 1968 people were living the simple life and had a lot less expenses. These days most families have two cars, spend more money on clothes, eating out, overseas holidays, etc, not to mention all the technology we didn't spend money on back in 1968 (computers, mobile phones, pay TV, Internet connection). All that extra stuff is a lot of extra outgoings. Even so, I suspect wages haven't kept up with inflation.
Yes very true, but that simple lifestyle was also a very fulfilling one. I started University in 1970 just a few years after the Paris and Chicago riots of 68 and I joined the mass protest movements around the world against the Vietnam War and the consumerist lifestyle that the military industrial complex and the banksters were using to seduce the world into a lifestyle of debt. I joined our demonstrations against Vietnam and I watched the 70's and 80's unravel. I wore a badge, popular at the time - "Consume. Be Silent. Die". My parents thought I was a communist and I had been corrupted by University. They aspired to consume. To get 'all that extra stuff'.
I had a scholarship - $21 a week: $8 for a third share in the rent, $5 for a third share in the food, $3 a week for petrol in the car to get to uni and around ($200 Austin that took me 2 years to save for working in the local grocery store) and $5 for lifestyle expenses. (poor student life, but the budget balanced each week).
All the extra expenses taken up by singles, couples and families these days are for amusement and if people really examined their expenses and what those expenses bring them, then they'd spend much less. It is much easier to be 'amused' these days ( to divert the attention of so as to deceive , : to occupy the attention of : absorb).
The world has become anti-intellectual and mass advertising has made the world dissatisfied with what it has. All part of the push into debt. My life fell into shambles and I was seduced by that lifestyle - fashion that goes to the charity bins after 2 wears, eating out every night etc etc. It's a very hard lifestyle to resist. As my economics teacher taught, expenditure rises with income. If debt is disguised as income that rule still applies.
So I agree Gold Kiwi, 1968 was a simpler life, and expenses were smaller because there was 'less' to spend your money on, but also income disparity was smaller and if you purchased a pair of shoes they were good for a year or two, not a few weeks, and you weren't constantly being urged, in full colour, to keep up with the Jones's. It wasn't a lot more inconvenient to refer to the an encyclopaedia rather than a quick surf to wikipedia, but yes, technology has made life better. But along with the technology has come the negative side of it, a world burning through its resources so we can get a new flat screen every few years, send a car to landfill when the 5 year guarantee runs out, and eat oranges from flown in from California rather than railed in from the Riverina.
I see a lot of 'the traditional' values espoused here on SS. It is not too hard to get back to them. 'to change the world, first change yourself', as the wise ones say. Soon that will be an imperative imho, and unfortunately I think that we have lost our moral compass, and there will be a lot of pain in finding it again, including the destruction of the middle class, because what that really means is a modern version of feudalism.