To understand why 30-somethings feel like they're struggling financially, the ABC analysed five factors — housing, healthcare, debt, tax, and income. The data reveals this generation is caught in an economic perfect storm.
I’m sure this whole article comes as a shock to nobody, but it’s nice to see it recognised like this.
The phrase “perfect storm” doesn’t necessarily relate to luck, it just means many bad things have happened or are happening at the same time. Which pretty accurately describes the era millennials are living in.
The bad things did not just happen, they were conscious choices or the inevitable consequences of those choices. I’m criticising the framing of this situation by the use of the passive voice in this subhead.
The bad things did not just happen, they were conscious choices or the inevitable consequences of those choices.
Which the authors then go on to explain in further detail, following the introduction. It’s right there in the sentence you cherrypicked that phrase out from:
An analysis of five factors — housing, healthcare, debt, tax, and income — reveals the age group is caught in a perfect economic storm.
An analysis of policy, formed by corporate interests and pushed upon the public in the 1980s, shows how it deprived the current crop of young adults of social housing, under-invested in public healthcare, enabled predatory lending practices, distorted the tax system so that a disproportionate amount fell upon the lowest three deciles of tax payers and hobbled unions while outsourcing manufacturing to the developing world causing earnings to plummet.
Nah good on you, fight the good fight. It wasn’t series of mistakes it was deliberate policy choices. Policy choices that show no sign of being changed. Capitalism has eaten democracy from the inside out, it will continue dancing around inside is skin till we see it for what it is.
“Capture”. Did no one study the bourgeois revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries?
The capitalist class revolted against the aristocracy and built new systems of government to benefit them. That is the origin of the modern state and capitalism.
The state as we know it has always been just a tool of the capitalist class to control all other classes. That’s what the state is, a tool of class control.
You’re from the UK and you don’t know about the English Revolution…? Where a constitutional monarchy was instituted, and the capitalists came into power?
It was far more of a religious war than anything else. You had aristocracy and rich capitalists on both sides. More so, the birth of nationwide capitalism had already taken place in the UK and joint venture stock companies were around long before the civil war too.
But catholic and protestant was a line you could always 100% accurately draw between the two sides. In fact, the only thing that really changed was that the monarch having to be church of England was made into law. The rest of British history makes infinitely more sense when the civil war is looked at through that lense.
I feel there is a misunderstanding of what a bourgeois revolution is. Sure, soon before the English Revolution, there was the institution of stock markets and corporations. But bourgeois revolutions don’t “make” capitalism. They institute capitalism as the main power and system.
Before the English Revolution, nobility and owning land was the real power. After it it was owning capital. That’s what makes it a bourgeois revolution.
And sure? There were “capitalists” fighting to maintain the existing power structures, just like there were workers fighting against the bolsheviks in the Russian revolution, right? That’s not a very compelling argument.
The capitalists could, through ideology and propaganda, be working against their own interests. Or they as individuals actually benefitted from the system as it was, despite not being the class in power.
In any case, revolutions happen when the existing dominant class is abruptly removed in favour of another. You can’t say this happened in England before the English Revolution.
Also, if you think Protestantism vs Catholicism has nothing to do with the power structures of late medieval and early modern Europe… idk what to tell you man. Religion is never just religion.
I understand it just fine and no, the first joint stock company was nearly 100 years before the civil war. Thats not soon before at all. It just really kills the narrative being spun.
Capitalism was nationwide here long before the civil war. Not only in the form of joint stock companies, ending merchantilism, but in the acts of enclosure forcing the yeomanry into the factories and workhouses (capital not land). Again, nearly 100 years before the civil war.
It was a war of religion and wherever you got this alternative narrative from is completely wrong. It was literally just fanatics killing each other over liking the wrong flavour of Jesus. Nothing meaningful changed after the war. Capitalism wasn’t ushered in, as it was already here. Capital didn’t become the dominant power due to it, as it already was the dominant power. CoE was already the dominant religion too. So, it wasn’t changing the power structure of the existing dominant religion. So, wrong on every account that could make it what you claim.
Specifically in the UK, the Catholic/protestant power structure change was that the monarch decided to, essentially, make themselves both monarch and pope. I think you’re confusing it with the German wars of religion and they weren’t the same.
Forgive my ignorance, but which event of the 17th century would you classify as a burgeois revolution? Late 18th century of course, even many during the 19th century, but i just can’t remember any such event from the 1600s
It’s not an edge case, it was arguably the first bourgeois revolution, and without it we wouldn’t have the Dutch, French and yes, American revolutions. I don’t like linking to Wikipedia, but the article is not terrible: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_revolution
It’s nobody’s fault, just economic weather. Just bad luck. Nothing to do with corporate capture of the political process whatsoever.
The phrase “perfect storm” doesn’t necessarily relate to luck, it just means many bad things have happened or are happening at the same time. Which pretty accurately describes the era millennials are living in.
The bad things did not just happen, they were conscious choices or the inevitable consequences of those choices. I’m criticising the framing of this situation by the use of the passive voice in this subhead.
Which the authors then go on to explain in further detail, following the introduction. It’s right there in the sentence you cherrypicked that phrase out from:
Here’s my improved version:
An analysis of policy, formed by corporate interests and pushed upon the public in the 1980s, shows how it deprived the current crop of young adults of social housing, under-invested in public healthcare, enabled predatory lending practices, distorted the tax system so that a disproportionate amount fell upon the lowest three deciles of tax payers and hobbled unions while outsourcing manufacturing to the developing world causing earnings to plummet.
Aaaaaaaaand breathe!
Yeah, I know, wrong meeting.
Nah good on you, fight the good fight. It wasn’t series of mistakes it was deliberate policy choices. Policy choices that show no sign of being changed. Capitalism has eaten democracy from the inside out, it will continue dancing around inside is skin till we see it for what it is.
Poetic
“Capture”. Did no one study the bourgeois revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries?
The capitalist class revolted against the aristocracy and built new systems of government to benefit them. That is the origin of the modern state and capitalism.
The state as we know it has always been just a tool of the capitalist class to control all other classes. That’s what the state is, a tool of class control.
I’m from the UK. We still have a monarch and an aristocracy, as well as a capitalist class. Even worse: they interbreed.
You’re from the UK and you don’t know about the English Revolution…? Where a constitutional monarchy was instituted, and the capitalists came into power?
It was far more of a religious war than anything else. You had aristocracy and rich capitalists on both sides. More so, the birth of nationwide capitalism had already taken place in the UK and joint venture stock companies were around long before the civil war too.
But catholic and protestant was a line you could always 100% accurately draw between the two sides. In fact, the only thing that really changed was that the monarch having to be church of England was made into law. The rest of British history makes infinitely more sense when the civil war is looked at through that lense.
I feel there is a misunderstanding of what a bourgeois revolution is. Sure, soon before the English Revolution, there was the institution of stock markets and corporations. But bourgeois revolutions don’t “make” capitalism. They institute capitalism as the main power and system.
Before the English Revolution, nobility and owning land was the real power. After it it was owning capital. That’s what makes it a bourgeois revolution.
And sure? There were “capitalists” fighting to maintain the existing power structures, just like there were workers fighting against the bolsheviks in the Russian revolution, right? That’s not a very compelling argument.
The capitalists could, through ideology and propaganda, be working against their own interests. Or they as individuals actually benefitted from the system as it was, despite not being the class in power.
In any case, revolutions happen when the existing dominant class is abruptly removed in favour of another. You can’t say this happened in England before the English Revolution.
Also, if you think Protestantism vs Catholicism has nothing to do with the power structures of late medieval and early modern Europe… idk what to tell you man. Religion is never just religion.
I understand it just fine and no, the first joint stock company was nearly 100 years before the civil war. Thats not soon before at all. It just really kills the narrative being spun.
Capitalism was nationwide here long before the civil war. Not only in the form of joint stock companies, ending merchantilism, but in the acts of enclosure forcing the yeomanry into the factories and workhouses (capital not land). Again, nearly 100 years before the civil war.
It was a war of religion and wherever you got this alternative narrative from is completely wrong. It was literally just fanatics killing each other over liking the wrong flavour of Jesus. Nothing meaningful changed after the war. Capitalism wasn’t ushered in, as it was already here. Capital didn’t become the dominant power due to it, as it already was the dominant power. CoE was already the dominant religion too. So, it wasn’t changing the power structure of the existing dominant religion. So, wrong on every account that could make it what you claim.
Specifically in the UK, the Catholic/protestant power structure change was that the monarch decided to, essentially, make themselves both monarch and pope. I think you’re confusing it with the German wars of religion and they weren’t the same.
You talking about Cromwell or William and Mary?
The whole period from the Wars of the Three Kingdoms until the Glorious Revolution.
Forgive my ignorance, but which event of the 17th century would you classify as a burgeois revolution? Late 18th century of course, even many during the 19th century, but i just can’t remember any such event from the 1600s
The first one, the English Revolution from around the 1640s to the 1660s?
That’s an edge case, but if you’d count those parliamentary nobles as burgoise then that’s fair. Thanks
It’s not an edge case, it was arguably the first bourgeois revolution, and without it we wouldn’t have the Dutch, French and yes, American revolutions. I don’t like linking to Wikipedia, but the article is not terrible: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_revolution