Post WW II Generations had it Easy

[Shwa]

How about the amount of malnutrition in the world today, versus 1970 ? Down more than 50%.

Yet from the same article we have:

There were 923 million malnourished people in the world in 2007, an increase of 80 million since 1990,[66] despite the fact that the world already produces enough food to feed everyone - 6 billion people - and could feed the double - 12 billion people.

So when does the prosperity part come for those 923 millions? Or is this cold comfort that the statistical group to which they belong has halved over the past 40 years? And let's not forget that obesity - another form of malnutrition - is on the rise in the US:

CDC Trends on Overweight and Obesity

Has prosperity arrived for these people?

You have to be careful to be clear about relative poverty versus absolute poverty.

And you must be careful of cultural relativism. This is why I gave you the thought experiment because we need to be certain of the values - to the best of our ability - of what we are trying to calculate. And some of those values could be completely foreign

to us, but that certainly does not make them irrelevant.

And, choice include other things than economic choices. For example, people can now choose to be single, or not more easily, to have careers, or to change careers more easily, to be openly homosexual, or not... the list goes on.

Is this also true for peasant China or India? Is it true for the refugee camps in Darfur? How about the career choices or out-of-the-closet coming for the drought ridden areas of Africa today?

The point I am trying to make is that which kimmie made:

the value of all of it in the future depends on the idea that the future is as prosperous as the present. That's not a given.

This seems to be more realistic and no, the future isn't a given. I get the sense that you are a positive and forward thinking person and that is a very good thing. But kimmie is right and is likely 'right' for the greater portion of our North American or global population.

So saying that there are some subject historical trends might be positive and forward thinking, it will hardly do in face of the avalanche of information that shows 'historically' the concept of 'prosperity' is subject to peaks and valleys and to a goodly portion of the people subjected to those trends, those valleys can go pretty damned deep.

[Guest American Woman]

So I don't really think the post-WWII generations "had it easy" per se, but they have deffo had it excessive. And sometimes excessive isn't easy if you know what I mean.

Every generation is more excessive than the last. Look around at kids carrying cell phones, iPods, wearing designer clothes, cars for everyone, television in every kid's room, computers, laptops, and on and on it goes.

To say this generation has less excesses is to be quite blind to reality. Perhaps as adults you haven't reached the level of baby boomers yet, but we didn't start out having it all, either. We worked for it and attained it over time.

And as I pointed out earlier, though it was completely ignored, the baby boomers had to fight for a lot of what they had, and that includes women entering the work force in large numbers for the first time. Up until then, women thought they would automatically marry, have kids, and raise them. But the baby boomers set the precedent for women today by entering traditionally male careers, fighting for at least some equality in wages, fighting against harassment. Furthermore, the baby boomers had to deal with civil rights, the cold war, and rising divorce rates and "having to get married" if they got pregnant. There are so many more personal choices available today, and those who aren't dwelling on being a victim of the baby boomer generation see that and appreciate it. Strides in medicine mean people don't have to suffer and die from the same ailments that we did; the prognosis is so much better in so many instances.

We gave our kids more than we had, just as our parents did. Will this generation do the same? I'm guessing yes. Will your kids think you had it easier than they do? I'm guessing yes. There's a reason people tend to yearn for 'the good ol' days,' which usually aren't all that good except in the minds of people who didn't have to live through them, or those who have forgotten the reality.

But I will say this. I'm totally appreciative of all I've had; travel experiences, kids, family, and owning my own home, attending university, etc., and my kids are totally appreciative of all they have had and now have. Anyone who whines and is bitter over past generations, blames them for all they feel is wrong in their life, feels as if they are a victim, is not taking responsibility for their life and all they have at their disposal.

I have to say, too, that it's a whiny attitude that only recognizes all the "wrongs" that the generation before them committed, while obviously not seeing all the improvements that have come about, all the progress that has been made, all that makes their life so much easier and richer.

[Guest American Woman]

I agree, the impasse has reared it's head and there's no point to go on. Peace.

Peace back at 'cha.

[Michael Hardner]

Yet from the same article we have:

So when does the prosperity part come for those 923 millions? Or is this cold comfort that the statistical group to which they belong has halved over the past 40 years? And let's not forget that obesity - another form of malnutrition - is on the rise in the US.

Prosperity comes over time. The situation today shouldn't make us happy, but rather hopeful.

Obesity is a very different problem.

And you must be careful of cultural relativism. This is why I gave you the thought experiment because we need to be certain of the values - to the best of our ability - of what we are trying to calculate. And some of those values could be completely foreign

to us, but that certainly does not make them irrelevant.

Absolutely. And things have changed much more for people outside North America, from what I can see. The middle class in China, for example, is a new phenomenon. The same rise in prosperity makes North America obese, while feeding other nations.

Is this also true for peasant China or India? Is it true for the refugee camps in Darfur? How about the career choices or out-of-the-closet coming for the drought ridden areas of Africa today?

Yes, it's true. As I said, China has a large middle class now that didn't exist before. The end of the cold war means that Africa is no longer the chessboard for the US and Soviet Union. The UN has made great strides in combating disease in Africa.

The point I am trying to make is that which kimmie made:

This seems to be more realistic and no, the future isn't a given. I get the sense that you are a positive and forward thinking person and that is a very good thing. But kimmie is right and is likely 'right' for the greater portion of our North American or global population.

So saying that there are some subject historical trends might be positive and forward thinking, it will hardly do in face of the avalanche of information that shows 'historically' the concept of 'prosperity' is subject to peaks and valleys and to a goodly portion of the people subjected to those trends, those valleys can go pretty damned deep.

Prosperity is subject to peaks and valleys, definitely, but it's hard to find a point in recent history where a 10-year investment in stocks wouldn't increase the real value of your investment.

Productivity increases year-over-year and we all benefit from that.

[Michael Hardner]

Something that's missing from this discussion, that we should add moving forward, is the increase in spiritual awareness moving forward. The 1960s saw a great wave of reassessment, from the baby boomer youth, as to our places in the universe.

That quest continues, and is responsible for our greater choices today, IMO.

[charter.rights]

Obesity is a very different problem.

Well no. It is the same problem but indicates we are moving towards something worse..... It is indicative of the massive hoarding that is going on in society. Obesity is taking in more and putting out less to get it. All the cell phones and gadgets are merely different forms of hoarding.

Somehow feelings have been displaced by "things". Expensive fashion, gadgetry and "new and improved" are signs that we are willing to replace our values with accumulations. No longer to we work to support our families as generations before us did, but now we work to support a lifestyle that is based on accumulating more things.

[Michael Hardner]

Well no. It is the same problem but indicates we are moving towards something worse..... It is indicative of the massive hoarding that is going on in society. Obesity is taking in more and putting out less to get it. All the cell phones and gadgets are merely different forms of hoarding.

Somehow feelings have been displaced by "things". Expensive fashion, gadgetry and "new and improved" are signs that we are willing to replace our values with accumulations. No longer to we work to support our families as generations before us did, but now we work to support a lifestyle that is based on accumulating more things.

Feelings have been displaced by things ? I don't understand.

We still work to support our families, but we want to give them more things, and more expensive things.

[Shwa]

Prosperity is subject to peaks and valleys, definitely, but it's hard to find a point in recent history where a 10-year investment in stocks wouldn't increase the real value of your investment.

For those that could afford the risk in the stock market you mean? And not including those whose incomes and businesses were wiped out in the past few years.

Productivity increases year-over-year and we all benefit from that.

Ah, so you do agree that the amount of garbage produced is an indicator of prosperity.

[Guest American Woman]

No longer to we work to support our families as generations before us did, but now we work to support a lifestyle that is based on accumulating more things.

Each generation before us has also worked to acquire some of the "things" that were available to them; that's not something that's new and/or unique to our generations. Furthermore, we also want to have/give our kids more experiences. "Having more," ie: more travel opportunities, access to the internet, more media/news outlets, etc., makes the world a smaller place, and consequently makes us more caring about what's happening in worlds outside of ours as we relate more to it, become more informed, more connected. It's likely the key to bridging the gaps between the rich and not rich nations; or at least a big part of it.

[Michael Hardner]

For those that could afford the risk in the stock market you mean? And not including those whose incomes and businesses were wiped out in the past few years.

The question is 'will prosperity continue' ? And the stock market is a good general reading on that.

As to distribution of wealth, we seem to have agreed that the wealth gap is at least as great as it was.

Ah, so you do agree that the amount of garbage produced is an indicator of prosperity.

Prosperity usually refers to economic prosperity as a default.

[bloodyminded]

Something that's missing from this discussion, that we should add moving forward, is the increase in spiritual awareness moving forward. The 1960s saw a great wave of reassessment, from the baby boomer youth, as to our places in the universe.

That quest continues, and is responsible for our greater choices today, IMO.

Well, it's true that I beleive we are becoming somewhat more civilized, at least in certain ways, and a large part of this is the result of the women's rights, civil rights, and anti-war movements of the 60's.

As we all have pretty much agreed, it's not a simple straight line, but peaks and valleys. But overall there has been some improvement in the social sphere.

[M.Dancer]

Well I know the pre second world war generation didn't have it easy. My father left school at 12 to find work. My mother was pulled out of school at 10 to help her mother raise the kids.

These were people who coped with the great influenza epidemic without flu shots, who sat in the other room while their mothers gave birth....and then say vigil in the livingroom till they buried their brother or sister

Working meant a 50 hour week for pennies an hour.

And if you would have asked them, they would have said they had it much easier than their parents.

[Shwa]

Prosperity usually refers to economic prosperity as a default.

Aye, there's the rub. It might be worthwhile to consider the hunter/gatherer from time to time, but outside of the confines of Hobbes.

[capricorn]

Well I know the pre second world war generation didn't have it easy. My father left school at 12 to find work. My mother was pulled out of school at 10 to help her mother raise the kids.

Very true. During the depression, my father gathered discarded newspaper, rolled it up and sold it a penny a pound to butchers on the Byward market to wrap up the meat they sold. (Was that the precursor to modern recycling? ) My mother attended school three years then quit to help raise her five younger siblings, who actually called her Maman until they were old enough to understand.

These were people who coped with the great influenza epidemic without flu shots, who sat in the other room while their mothers gave birth....

often in a room separated only with a curtain.

and then say vigil in the livingroom till they buried their brother or sister...

following a three-day round the clock wake.

No wonder my folks freaked out when talk of the computer age started making the news. Come to think of it, they had a similar reaction when a gyrating Elvis hit the Ed Sullivan Show.

[kimmy]

Well I know the pre second world war generation didn't have it easy.

My special guy of many years was several years older than me... his parents were both of the age that their formative years were during the Great Depression. I had dinner with his family once, before his mother's untimely death. I was quite struck that even though this family was quite well off, his mom was still insistent that someone eat the last teaspoon of green beans, and the last two teaspoons of mashed potatoes.

"There's not enough to store, and we're NOT throwing away good food!" she said. And my special guy dutifully crammed down the last teaspoon of green beans and the last two teaspoons of mashed potatoes. Not because a strapping 200 pound man needs an extra teaspoon of green beans and two teaspoons of mashed potatoes, but because his mom grew up in circumstances that made it abhorrent for her to see anything, anything at all, go to waste.

-k

[capricorn]

You know Kimmy, that familial preponderance not to waste food usually stays with you. I can afford and buy more expensive food than my parents but I plan meals to make sure there is bare minimum waste. Heck, every couple of weeks I make what my aunt called a refrigerator soup. All unused veggies go into a pot with chicken stock to be served with fresh bread. Man, this discussion is bringing back a lot of memories.

[kimmy]

Every generation is more excessive than the last. Look around at kids carrying cell phones, iPods, wearing designer clothes, cars for everyone, television in every kid's room, computers, laptops, and on and on it goes.

I think it is a mistake to equate gadgets with prosperity or "having it easy".

Right now, it takes a couple 2 full-time incomes to provide a lifestyle for their children that previous generations were able to provide on a single income.

I think that many young couples feel disappointed that while their parents were able to provide a house with a yard with mom home full-time, it now takes both of their incomes just to provide their children with a 2-bedroom condo and after-school care.

I think the reason so many couples hold off having kids until their late 20s or 30s now is that they are trying to work a few extra years to save enough money so that they can provide their kids with the same kind of environment that their parents were able to provide for them.

And as I pointed out earlier, though it was completely ignored, the baby boomers had to fight for a lot of what they had, and that includes women entering the work force in large numbers for the first time. Up until then, women thought they would automatically marry, have kids, and raise them. But the baby boomers set the precedent for women today by entering traditionally male careers, fighting for at least some equality in wages, fighting against harassment.

This is fair. I work in construction; that wouldn't have been possible in the past.

We gave our kids more than we had, just as our parents did. Will this generation do the same? I'm guessing yes.

And I'm guessing no. More iPods and cell phones and gadgets, maybe, but not more of anything of significance. There's more people, and less of everything to go around.

Kids today might be more likely to be given iPods and cellphones by their parents. But will it be easier for them to obtain a quality public school education? Quality health care? Attend university? The answer is different in the United States of course, but in Canada, the answer is no.

As Capricorn mentioned, the public debt had become so massive that funding for all of these things has been massively slashed during my lifetime. My 1st year of university, which I paid for out of my own pocket with no assistance from anyone, cost me 5 times what my special guy paid in tuition just 15 years earlier.

Public school funding has likewise been slashed... schools that used to offer options for vocational or fine arts and music and athletics and other programs are providing less and less "extras" and talk of "back to basics" education. Schools are being closed, kids are being amalgamated into classes that are twice as big as they were even when I was in public school.

Healthcare technology may have advanced to the point that we now have the ability to help more people than we used to, but that's somewhat offset by the rising costs of providing it and the declining public funds to do so.

I'm not sure that having iPods and cellphones makes up for those things.

Will your kids think you had it easier than they do? I'm guessing yes. There's a reason people tend to yearn for 'the good ol' days,' which usually aren't all that good except in the minds of people who didn't have to live through them, or those who have forgotten the reality.

I agree completely. I've been calling it "selective memory". We do this thing in the Arts & Culture forum every couple of months where old-people tell me how awesome the music and TV shows of yesteryear were compared to the new stuff, and I point out all the dog-crap from yesteryear that they've forgotten about. Pop on by next time, everybody has a great time. Young people do it too. They hear about The Beatles and Led Zepplin but aren't aware of all the garbage that just didn't survive the test of time.

As relates to this discussion, though, I think maybe the selective memory is the tendency to focus on things like iPods and cellphones and lose sight of things like a safe and comfortable environment and education and issues that are more significant measures of real prosperity.

But I will say this. I'm totally appreciative of all I've had; travel experiences, kids, family, and owning my own home, attending university, etc., and my kids are totally appreciative of all they have had and now have. Anyone who whines and is bitter over past generations, blames them for all they feel is wrong in their life, feels as if they are a victim, is not taking responsibility for their life and all they have at their disposal.

I have to say, too, that it's a whiny attitude that only recognizes all the "wrongs" that the generation before them committed, while obviously not seeing all the improvements that have come about, all the progress that has been made, all that makes their life so much easier and richer.

And I think that a lot of people of a certain age don't recognize that people entering the workforce and making lives for themselves today face challenges that they themselves didn't face. People who start off conversations with "when I was your age..." and don't seem to recognize that when they were that age things were different than they are now.

-k

[wyly]

True enough, but you won't find this in a modern fishery that has cameras and a truly rigorous monitoring and auditing process that accounts for everything that is caught, including by-catch. Do the same to other food producing industries and others that impact the environment and see how you feel.

My particular commercial fishery is an example of the most closely monitored fishery on the planet. The methods of monitoring are discriminate and destroy the ability to operate in secrecy and disrupt entire ecosystems on a grand scale in the process.

More importantly the methods of this monitoring provide me the opportunity to continue fishing. Without it, I'm not allowed to go fishing, its just that simple. This year, my produce contributed to the incomes of four families and every boat load of fish I caught (every 3 - 5 days) created a full days employment for about 80 - 90 people.

I should also add the cost of our oversight comes off the top of the catch. That's roughly equal to a crewman's share, or about $1000 per trip. Accountability and transparency creates jobs as well as saves them.

that may be true of your industry but for most of the world mass desruction of the resource is standard method of operation...

[Shwa]

Public school funding has likewise been slashed... schools that used to offer options for vocational or fine arts and music and athletics and other programs are providing less and less "extras" and talk of "back to basics" education. Schools are being closed, kids are being amalgamated into classes that are twice as big as they were even when I was in public school.

My oldest just got his engineering degree from a well known Canadian engineering university. He basically paid for it himself, he has debt, but he'll manage. My youngest will graduate from high school within the next year or two. I have a bunch in between. I went to a typical public school and a typical high school back in the day.

Class sizes really haven't changed much. It is still around 20-30 for most classes as it was when I went to school and through the school years of my kids.

Schools are being closed in our city and amalgamated, but it is to address the demographics of the neighbourhood more than anything else. I live in a older neighbourhood so there are less school aged children and it doesn't make sense to keep a school - that was designed for 1200 kids - open for 400.

My kids high school offers vocational training, music and athletics (I am a volunteer coach for one of their teams). There doesn't seem to be any less than when I went to school. It is all more or less the same. Our team has a decent budget to afford what we need to play.

There are some differences of course. Students today have access to far more information than we ever did and some of their learning is geared toward how to successfully access this information to solve problems. I see people in my workplace struggle with the information age, where the next generation takes it in stride. They plug in their iPod, fire up the laptop and type away while the TV is on and the phone is at their side.

I also don't see any less money coming into the education system, but I do see it allotted differently. There seems to be more money put into the local boards adminstrative complex, more padding of the board bureaucracy and dealing with some questionable wage increases. It seems to me that maintaining school service levels while building the castles has actually increased the amount of money being alloted to the local public education system. But I am not sure if this is typical everywhere.

[Guest American Woman]

Occasionally, I have to walk through Westmount and invariably I see the old rich codgers in their wheel chairs or with their walkers, at a cafe, and a Filipina or Jamaican attendant standing or sitting nearby. No doubt, I think, the boomer children have moved to Toronto or LA and hired 24 hour care to assuage any guilt about their elderly anglo parents.

How is God's name can you tell if they're rich or not, sitting in a wheel chair or with a walker, at a cafe? But since the size of their bank account is beside the point, those "old codgers" may not want to live with their children or have their children caring for them; or they might live with their children and have their children doing a lot of the care taking, but require a professional care taker to be with them while their children are at work. Or perhaps their children re-settled elsewhere years ago and have job and family obligations that keep them from moving back and caring for their parents 24/7.

I bought my house from an "old codger" who was in a wheelchair as a result of being a POW in WWII, and it was very difficult for him to have to sell it to move in with his daughter and her husband so she could care for him and his wife. His children had been trying to get him to realize that they shouldn't be living on their own, but he was having nothing to do with it. His independence was important to him, and a sense of pride. So don't assume that the kids involved aren't stressing over their aging parents; it's very difficult for both generations, as the elderly generally don't want to lose their independence, and it's not an easy situation for children to sometimes have to, in effect, force a change on their parents. But perhaps the "old codgers" you see don't even have children.

Fact is, the ignorance of your assumption/accusation speaks ill of you.

[bloodyminded]

I'm not quite clear on some of these arguments: are the younger-than-boomers generations angry about helping to take care of the boomers as they become elderly?

The baby boomers aren't some separate entity for us to resent: they're our mothers and fathers and elders. Aren't they?

I apologize if I'm missing something here, but I don't think I even quite understand the argument of distinction.

Edited December 15, 2009 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

How is God's name can you tell if they're rich or not, sitting in a wheel chair or with a walker, at a cafe?

There are no poor in Westmount...at least, those who live in Westmount.

[Topaz]

I say it all depends were you lived and what kind of job your parent(s) had and today both parents have to work just to make ends meet. I don't think you can judge which generation has it better, its which class had it better. You don't see too many families with 12 or 18 kids now a days, which you did in the past. Being a boomer, I think the 60's had the best music from all around the world. I come from a family of 8, and I remember my mom spending $25.00 weekly for groceries, now it what $150+! A house our parents would have bought maybe 1800-3000 back in the 50's,in the 70's we would have paid around 25,000., a new car in the early 70's around 3800.00. Probably the only area that had the advantage, was the stock market. If you invested back in the early 50's you could be a self-made millionaire, but I doubt if you could start from scratch and do it now. Today, you buy a lottery ticket and pray for the best. Some of us boomers never had it easy but it did helps to become self-sufficient, the only draw down to the boomers were the ones who got hooked on drugs and paid the price for it.

[M.Dancer]

There are no poor in Westmount...at least, those who live in Westmount.

Let me qualify that a bit, I knew an elderly woman who with a fixed income in Westmount was in dire straits indeed.

She was so stretched she was down to her last servant.

[M.Dancer]

It's kind of funny how short sighted we can be when we wax nostalgic over the post war boom. Everything needs to be in perspective.

The single income middle class family of the 50s and 60s was an historical anomaly. Even the two income family today is an anomaly compared to 1900s. A family that had idle children let alone an idle homemaker was rare indeed. Children not in school (and not married) were employed and the pay packet would be dutifully delivered to the head of the household every pay day. And from that they would receive their allowance.

In my mother's family, who had 13 kids, prior to the second world war they were a 6 income family. And in my own family growing up the tradition continued; we were a 3 income family, my father and my two older brothers who turned over 50% of their pay to our mother (they got off easy, my father turned over 100%).

A little while ago my buddies son got his first summer job. I asked his mother how much room and board was she taking..she said ZERO. I questioned the wisdom of allowing a 16 year old have access to $400+ a week...I said I thought it wasn't teaching a responsible lesson....but I digress...