Culture

[ACamp1900]

 

[ACamp1900]

Okay... I'm done, thanks for that.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

People of all sorts have to make tough decisions vis a vis relocation... they've had to for centuries in this country... it's only now that there's some strange entitlement that people should be able to live where they want and it's the Government's job to guarantee their employment.

I don't think most Trump supporters feel like the government owes them a job. But they believe that the government has made affirmative policy choices that have consistently undermined their quality of life and employment prospects over the last several decades. The ability of big box companies to move in and crush all the small businesses was created and is still actively encouraged by our policy decisions. Just as the ability for our corporate giants to flout anti-trust law, off-shore jobs, abuse H1B visas, etc. You and wizards frequently default to this mode of argumentation that assumes neoliberal economics and maximal globalization as a given. It's not. There were other policy decisions we could have made, other priorities we could have pursued, but we didn't. And the route we opted for produced a lot of losers.

Good jobs definitely exist. There are tons of manufacturing jobs that I know of in Charleston that pay $18-$30 an hour. Do those jobs exist in every single metropolitan market? No. But my father-in-law ended up in manufacturing for a short stint in Chicago -- a bankrupt wasteland in a bankrupt state -- where they couldn't find people to staff positions for $25/hr because they either 1) couldn't pass a drug test 2) had a criminal record or 3) just simply didn't want to work a factory job.

Again, you and wiz love to point to the instability of our lower classes as evidence that their suffering is all self-inflicted. It's a convenient argument if you're looking to justify washing your hands of these people, but it's not nearly that simple. Much of that instability is due to policies and priorities that our elites have affirmatively chosen. The current opioid crisis is a great example, which is in turn a sign of the hopelessness these people experience after watching all the meaningful connections in their lives dissolve in the acid of liberalism.

No, it is not a "laziness" thing primarily... I have half my family in rural America, and it's not an unwillingness that's the problem for most people. It's that people grow up basically never leaving their town/state and then have a fear of the outside world... and then their families guilt trip the hell out of them about moving away. At a wedding recently where a friend of mine from ND was marrying a guy from rural Tennessee and he was moving to Colorado for his job the family was pissed that she was "stealing" him and the speeches were hella uncomfortable. The tweetstorm was emblematic of this mindest I've seen first hand many times.

I guess it comes down to differing ideas about what really matters in life. I don't think it's obvious that moving away in pursuit of a better salary and a higher material standard of living is the "correct" course of action over sacrificing some economic benefits to remain near family. Lots of people live happy purposeful lives without much in the way of material comforts; but I don't see many people living happy purposeful lives without thick communal bonds.

That's actually basically the opposite of what I said. When people first emigrated from Europe to this country, they generally settled in highly dense cities... then they continuously spread out across the country, for lots of reasons but basically to find a livelihood. Many became farms in what we now call rural America or moved to mining towns or mill towns or plant towns. There have been many, many migration patterns in the history of this country. Half of my family ended up in a tiny town in the middle of nowhere, and the family business they had has been wholly destroyed by globalization. No President or policy is going to bring it back.

See my first paragraph above. I don't think the destruction of your family business by globalization was an unavoidable outcome.

The idea that millennials should be exempt from having to migrate as the economy dictates is nothing but entitlement. Every other generation has done it as necessary to find jobs and provide for themselves/their family.

I don't think it's a generational thing. People are waking up to fact that the decisions being made in Washington are purposefully designed to enrich bankers, CEOs and professionals at the expense of those in "fly over" country. American culture has been very resistant to any form of broad-based class consciousness in the past, but that may be changing.

 

[IrishLax]

I don't think most Trump supporters feel like the government owes them a job. But they believe that the government has made affirmative policy choices that have consistently undermined their quality of life and employment prospects over the last several decades. The ability of big box companies to move in and crush all the small businesses was created and is still actively encouraged by our policy decisions. Just as the ability for our corporate giants to flout anti-trust law, off-shore jobs, abuse H1B visas, etc. You and wizards frequently default to this mode of argumentation that assumes neoliberal economics and maximal globalization as a given. It's not. There were other policy decisions we could have made, other priorities we could have pursued, but we didn't. And the route we opted for produced a lot of losers.

Again, you and wiz love to point to the instability of our lower classes as evidence that their suffering is all self-inflicted. *snip*

I mean this is so obviously has almost nothing to do with my point. My point is quite simple -- there are tons of good, high paying jobs available. For a myriad of reasons, these Americans refuse to do them and then rant and rave how there are "no jobs."

From that Tweetstorm:
-"Food service is all illegals"... wrong
-"Landscaping all illegals"... semi-wrong, but it hearkens on the bigger lie that there are no jobs in service/construction/landscaping/anything with your hands because of "illegals"... all of that is total crap, and everyone knows those jobs have always been concentrated in urban/suburban areas to begin with so it's irrelevant to the point. There are so many of those jobs available right now it's comical... they go completely unfilled.
-"Devastated entry level jobs"... wrong, you can get jobs with no education/training where you use your hands and make $50k-$75k a year. There are literally thousands of them unfilled.
-"There is little future for high schoolers unfit for secondary education"... again, total crap. They can come work on my job site any day.

Need I go on? It is all lies, easily refutable by a Google search.

You harp on Government decisions made in the past. That is completely irrelevant to what they choose to do now. And right now, they choose to blame brown people for "taking their jobs" when we have a robust economy with below 5% unemployment and thousands of unfilled, high-paying blue collar jobs readily available for anyone that can show up on time.

But apparently commuting or migrating... like every single other generation has done... is too much to ask of Millennials because *reasons*

See my first paragraph above. I don't think the destruction of your family business by globalization was an unavoidable outcome.

That's not the point, at all. It's that it was an outcome. It has happened and it's not coming back regardless of who you put in power and how they might attempt to unwring the bell.

I don't think it's a generational thing. People are waking up to fact that the decisions being made in Washington are purposefully designed to enrich bankers, CEOs and professionals at the expense of those in "fly over" country. American culture has been very resistant to any form of broad-based class consciousness in the past, but that may be changing.

How is it no generational when they're the only generation that's unwilling to move for work in the history of this country?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I mean this is so obviously has almost nothing to do with my point. My point is quite simple -- there are tons of good, high paying jobs available. For a myriad of reasons, these Americans refuse to do them and then rant and rave how there are "no jobs."

From that Tweetstorm:
-"Food service is all illegals"... wrong
-"Landscaping all illegals"... semi-wrong, but it hearkens on the bigger lie that there are no jobs in service/construction/landscaping/anything with your hands because of "illegals"... all of that is total crap, and everyone knows those jobs have always been concentrated in urban/suburban areas to begin with so it's irrelevant to the point. There are so many of those jobs available right now it's comical... they go completely unfilled.
-"Devastated entry level jobs"... wrong, you can get jobs with no education/training where you use your hands and make $50k-$75k a year. There are literally thousands of them unfilled.
-"There is little future for high schoolers unfit for secondary education"... again, total crap. They can come work on my job site any day.

Need I go on? It is all lies, easily refutable by a Google search.

I assume you're aware of how misleading our official employment statistics can be. And I can see that you're very dug in on this issue, so I don't think we're likely to get anywhere until I have some evidence to refute your point. Such evidence exists, but I don't have time to look for it right now. Until later...

You harp on Government decisions made in the past. That is completely irrelevant to what they choose to do now. And right now, they choose to blame brown people for "taking their jobs" when we have a robust economy with below 5% unemployment and thousands of unfilled, high-paying blue collar jobs readily available for anyone that can show up on time.

But apparently commuting or migrating... like every single other generation has done... is too much to ask of Millennials because *reasons*

I agree there's definitely some scapegoating of recent immigrants involved here. It's a largely symbolic issue that's related to other, more concrete ways in which our current elite consciously chooses to f*ck over our working class in favor of other (including some foreign) interest groups.

The level of rootlessness our current economy expects of the average aspiring-toward-upward-mobility worker is historically unprecedented, so I don't see this as an issue of millenials balking at the things their parents and grandparents did without complaint.

That's not the point, at all. It's that it was an outcome. It has happened and it's not coming back regardless of who you put in power and how they might attempt to unwring the bell.

Most of them admit quite honestly that this bell can't be un-rung. They simply want politicians who are going to prioritize the interests of their children over coastal elites and others who are continuing to benefit at their expense.

How is it no generational when they're the only generation that's unwilling to move for work in the history of this country?

Because it's not just the millenials in Trump country, but their parents who are too old to "learn computers" or start all over again in a new part of the country.

 

[IrishLax]

I assume you're aware of how misleading our official employment statistics can be. And I can see that you're very dug in on this issue, so I don't think we're likely to get anywhere until I have some evidence to refute your point. Such evidence exists, but I don't have time to look for it right now. Until later...

I agree there's definitely some scapegoating of recent immigrants involved here. It's a largely symbolic issue that's related to other, more concrete ways in which our current elite consciously chooses to f*ck over our working class in favor of other (including some foreign) interest groups.

That's all fair, and if the Tweetstorm had owned that instead of railing on "illegals" I would've been more receptive. I just work with a lot of hard working people every day that often get called "illegals" (they're not) and get accused of "stealing jobs" (they aren't) because of their skin color and the language they speak.

Most contractors I know literally have dozens of open positions right now paying exceptionally competitive wages. Most people I know in manufacturing are running at about 70% staff because they can't find people to take manufacturing jobs. These are middle class jobs.

I also spent months in an abandoned mining town (Ajo, AZ for my first job) so I understand the frustration of people in those communities who lose their industry. But I don't respect the argument that jobs "don't exist" or that brown people are to blame.

And, IMO,how much globalist policies are truly to blame and what the correct policies are vs protectionism is extremely debatable and worth a more nuanced discussion than one we can have with regard to the Tweetstorm.

Because it's not just the millenials in Trump country, but their parents who are too old to "learn computers" or start all over again in a new part of the country.

I mean I know tons of people in construction with families that are 40+ and recently moved to this area for jobs. I fundamentally reject this premise as legitimate. My wife's aunt is having to move from Chicago to Arkansas for work in the poultry industry... so it isn't all rural-to-urban.

And to be clear, the Tweetstorm mostly harped on entry level positions/young people.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

Trump Presidency

Trump Presidency

Eliminating shop classes from schools, demonizing skilled labor jobs as some sort of subhuman occupation, and creating the illusion everyone has to go to college to be successful was when things really took a crap IMO.

There are probably millions of people sitting in cubicles, daydreaming about working with their hands outside on a daily basis, and breaking their backs instead of their soul.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Eliminating shop classes from schools, demonizing skilled labor jobs as some sort of subhuman occupation, and creating the illusion everyone has to go to college to be successful was when things really took a crap IMO.

The notion that it's better to go to college is true the vast majority of the time. Its not exactly an illusion. Incomes correlate with education.

That men haven't gone to college at the rate of women helps explain why they feel left behind IMO.

Even if it's just community college, we should still be encouraging college to kids. We just need some help from the libertarian/conservative/deregulation crowd to help bring the cost of education down. We can bet the farm the Democrats wont be doing it sustainably.

I agree 1000% on demonizing trades and skilled labor.

There are probably millions of people sitting in cubicles, daydreaming about working with their hands outside on a daily basis, and breaking their backs instead of their soul.

The grass is always greener though.

 

[Irish#1]

It's total nonsense because there are thousands of jobs available right now in metropolitan areas they just don't want to move and work them for their market rate. All it takes is a bus ticket to get out, and just about every store in Tysons Corner is hiring. I'm sorry their communities are obsolete but it's the same situation my mom was in decades ago... you can't do structural engineering in a one stoplight town, so you have to move for a job. Similarly, if the plant/mill/whatever jobs are gone move and get a job in something else.

There are also TONS of manufacturing jobs in places like Charleston that can't find someone to work it for $18/hour if "blue collar" work is your kind of thing. Don't even get me started on the shortage of "skilled labor" in construction markets like Denver and DC. The whole economic premise is horseshit.

Whiskey doesn't think anybody should ever move for any reason whatsoever. Everyone should stay in their hometown for a thousand generations in the same house their great grandfathers built with their bare hands after World War I.

Both of you have very valid points, but I think you're missing a key component. Unlike both of you who would uproot and move hundreds of miles away, there are many that are either scared to do it, or they have family and roots that are much stronger than yours and prefer to find something in their area. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just a different thought process for them.

The notion that it's better to go to college is true the vast majority of the time. Its not exactly an illusion. Incomes correlate with education.

That men haven't gone to college at the rate of women helps explain why they feel left behind IMO.

Even if it's just community college, we should still be encouraging college to kids. We just need some help from the libertarian/conservative/deregulation crowd to help bring the cost of education down. We can bet the farm the Democrats wont be doing it sustainably.
.

One culprit for today's ridiculous high cost for getting a college education can be laid at the feet of the universities themselves. People criticize the "arms race" of college athletics (new stadiums, SOA training facilities, commuting thousands of miles for competition, etc.), but some of this is also due to the "arms race" the academia side has created, (building new research facilities, dorms that are more like hotels, etc.) in order to attract the top students. Most schools go through some fund raising, but a lot of this the student and their parents have to pay for in their tuition. I would like to see the Fed and/or local governments offer at least the first two years of college at no cost.

 

[GowerND11]

Both of you have very valid points, but I think you're missing a key component. Unlike both of you who would uproot and move hundreds of miles away, there are many that are either scared to do it, or they have family and roots that are much stronger than yours and prefer to find something in their area. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just a different thought process for them.



One culprit for today's ridiculous high cost for getting a college education can be laid at the feet of the universities themselves. People criticize the "arms race" of college athletics (new stadiums, SOA training facilities, commuting thousands of miles for competition, etc.), but some of this is also due to the "arms race" the academia side has created, (building new research facilities, dorms that are more like hotels, etc.) in order to attract the top students. Most schools go through some fund raising, but a lot of this the student and their parents have to pay for in their tuition. I would like to see the Fed and/or local governments offer at least the first two years of college at no cost.

The bold is definitely not talked about enough, and I would love to know how many of these projects are tied to rising tuition, especially at state schools.

 

[NorthDakota]

The bold is definitely not talked about enough, and I would love to know how many of these projects are tied to rising tuition, especially at state schools.

Dorms, amenities, student fees tied to athletics at some places, etc is nuts.

Another thing to maybe consider, the availability of student loans? Easy for a school to raise tuition when students are still going to come since loans are available.

 

[GowerND11]

Dorms, amenities, student fees tied to athletics at some places, etc is nuts.

Another thing to maybe consider, the availability of student loans? Easy for a school to raise tuition when students are still going to come since loans are available.

This is true. I could never have went to college without loans. I do think, when people talk about making school cost less, they mention student loans. Yes sometimes they are ridiculous (I wish mine weren't so much), but they are tied to the rising tuition cost, and the universities aren't feeling the heat, so it seems, because they still get their money.

 

[NorthDakota]

, and the universities aren't feeling the heat, so it seems, because they still get their money.

This was what i was getting at! Thanks for putting it into words.

 

[wizards8507]

Whiskey, can I ask where your obsession with multi-generational familial proximity comes from? Until very recently in human history, it wasn't uncommon for a husband and wife to never see their parents again once they were married and set off to start a life for themselves. It's a sentiment as old as Genesis and reiterated by Christ himself in the Gospel of Matthew. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body."

I posted the quote from The Plain White T's in jest yesterday, but there's truth to the sentiment "...a thousand miles seems pretty far but they've got planes and trains and cars." With modern communication and transportation technology the way it is, the idea of living "close" to your family doesn't really mean what it did a hundred or even twenty years ago.

 

[GowerND11]

Whiskey, can I ask where your obsession with multi-generational familial proximity comes from? Until very recently in human history, it wasn't uncommon for a husband and wife to never see their parents again once they were married and set off to start a life for themselves. It's a sentiment as old as Genesis and reiterated by Christ himself in the Gospel of Matthew. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body."

I posted the quote from The Plain White T's in jest yesterday, but there's truth to the sentiment "...a thousand miles seems pretty far but they've got planes and trains and cars." With modern communication and transportation technology the way it is, the idea of living "close" to your family doesn't really mean what it did a hundred or even twenty years ago.

But did the man really leave them, or is it that he left that part of his life, that relationship, and entered into a new one? It also wasn't uncommon in history for a son to take up shelter in a house, apartment, dwelling, whatever next to or near the parents. Same house? Maybe not, but certainly same town. There weren't many people leaving Athens for Sparta I would bet, let alone even London for Liverpool in the Middle Ages.

 

[woolybug25]

Whiskey, can I ask where your obsession with multi-generational familial proximity comes from? Until very recently in human history, it wasn't uncommon for a husband and wife to never see their parents again once they were married and set off to start a life for themselves. It's a sentiment as old as Genesis and reiterated by Christ himself in the Gospel of Matthew. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body."

I posted the quote from The Plain White T's in jest yesterday, but there's truth to the sentiment "...a thousand miles seems pretty far but they've got planes and trains and cars." With modern communication and transportation technology the way it is, the idea of living "close" to your family doesn't really mean what it did a hundred or even twenty years ago.

It's based in community building. You are incorrect that that historically people have moved from family. That bible passage is about making a new family structure with your wife, not moving away from your family. All over the world, societies have been more communial. The industrial revolution spawned generations of isolationism and are we better off for it? I would argue, as I'm guessing Whiskey would, that it has not.

Just because you can get on a plane or drive doesn't mean that you are an active part of your family's life. A grandmother that visits every couple months is exactly that... a visitor. It truly does (gasp!) take a village to raise a child, and if that is the case, don't you want your own family (who share values, beliefs, etc) to be that village?

I think you want isolationism to be equal to communial living because it justifies your personal existence. But data clearly says you're incorrect.

Families that live close to each other are happiest, have less cancer and less disease. This was one of the interesting points raised in ‘This is Your Brain on Joy – A Revolutionary Program for Balancing Mood, Restoring Brain Health, and Nurturing Spiritual Growth.’
https://www.families.com/blog/living-close-to-family

You might choose getting rich or an interesting career. Or you might choose, as 72 percent of Americans did in a recent survey, “having a good marriage and family life.” And in a survey undertaken last year by Barna Research, 62 percent of Americans said family is the central thing that makes up their personal identity. Family beat out (1) being an American, (2) religious faith and (3) career. Most people agree, family is central to our identity and our happiness.
Family Talk: Family makes many of us happy | News OK

You can try to convince yourself that distance doesn't change the level of engagement you have with family members, but it's incorrect. It's like if you go visit an old roommate and you realize they have their own life that doesn't include you in the inner most circle anymore. You are still their dear friend, but you are not part of their village.

 

[wizards8507]

It's based in community building. You are incorrect that that historically people have moved from family. That bible passage is about making a new family structure with your wife, not moving away from your family. All over the world, societies have been more communial. The industrial revolution spawned generations of isolationism and are we better off for it? I would argue, as I'm guessing Whiskey would, that it has not.

Just because you can get on a plane or drive doesn't mean that you are an active part of your family's life. A grandmother that visits every couple months is exactly that... a visitor. It truly does (gasp!) take a village to raise a child, and if that is the case, don't you want your own family (who share values, beliefs, etc) to be that village?

I think you want isolationism to be equal to communial living because it justifies your personal existence. But data clearly says you're incorrect.

You can try to convince yourself that distance doesn't change the level of engagement you have with family members, but it's incorrect. It's like if you go visit an old roommate and you realize they have their own life that doesn't include you in the inner most circle anymore. You are still their dear friend, but you are not part of their village.

I'm not saying people should move far from their families. Obviously, in an ideal world, the job opportunities and both sets of grandparents would live in the same geographic area. But, as we live in the real world, sometimes you need to make a choice between one or the other, and I don't think "but muh momma" is an adequate excuse for a grown man to let his wife and children live in destitution if there aren't any jobs near momma.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm not saying people should move far from their families. Obviously, in an ideal world, the job opportunities and both sets of grandparents would live in the same geographic area. But, as we live in the real world, sometimes you need to make a choice between one or the other, and I don't think "but muh momma" is an adequate excuse for a grown man to let his wife and children live in destitution if there aren't any jobs near momma.

That's not what you were saying at all. You even gave a bible passage to (incorrectly) give creedance to why one should move away. You're backing away from that because you know you're wrong. It's also not "but muh momma", it's having a kids grandparents as a part of their upbringing. To have your children's friends include their blood. It's about making a society a cohesive one with shared values.


@mods - This is a great conversation, but it really has veered far off of Trump. With Trump Jr admitting to working Russia and just now posting the email where he knows that Russia wants to work with them to elect his father, it may be a good time to move this to the "Culture" thread. Thanks

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That's all fair, and if the Tweetstorm had owned that instead of railing on "illegals" I would've been more receptive. I just work with a lot of hard working people every day that often get called "illegals" (they're not) and get accused of "stealing jobs" (they aren't) because of their skin color and the language they speak.

Ah, I see where the disconnect is. You'll recall that in my initial post, I wrote "Here's a compelling Tweetstorm from Trump country." I added the italicized bit to emphasize that I wasn't endorsing it wholesale, but sharing it as an unusually articulate insight into an outlook that swung the last election.

I assumed it was well known that I didn't vote for Trump, nor do I spend any time here defending him personally. But I do have major problems with liberalism as a political ideology, and I think the 2016 election showed how fragile the status quo is; so I often end up defending Trump supporters when people try to write them off for various reasons, because they do have substantive complaints with how our ruling class has neglected their interests.

Whiskey, can I ask where your obsession with multi-generational familial proximity comes from? Until very recently in human history, it wasn't uncommon for a husband and wife to never see their parents again once they were married and set off to start a life for themselves. It's a sentiment as old as Genesis and reiterated by Christ himself in the Gospel of Matthew. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body."

wooly already touched on this, but the situation you're describing--children and parents living some distance apart in autonomous households--is the historical anomaly. Multigenerational households have been the norm since time immemorial. It was only the unique social circumstances created here after World War II that enabled such a radically individualized way of living in the first place, and it's not likely that we'll be able to recreate those conditions again.

@mods - This is a great conversation, but it really has veered far off of Trump. With Trump Jr admitting to working Russia and just now posting the email where he knows that Russia wants to work with them to elect his father, it may be a good time to move this to the "Culture" thread. Thanks

Moving it now.

 

[wizards8507]

wooly already touched on this, but the situation you're describing--children and parents living some distance apart in autonomous households--is the historical anomaly. Multigenerational households have been the norm since time immemorial. It was only the unique social circumstances created here after World War II that enabled such a radically individualized way of living in the first place, and it's not likely that we'll be able to recreate those conditions again.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't even pass the common sense test. The fertility rate was over seven live births per woman in 1800, and only recently has fallen to around the replacement rate of two live births per woman. I know you believe in the value of fertility (as do I), but when the fertility rate is any higher than two, what you're describing is literally impossible. You can't keep the kids in the house when you have seven of them and they all get married and have seven of their own and so on.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't even pass the common sense test. The fertility rate was over seven live births per woman in 1800, and only recently has fallen to around the replacement rate of two live births per woman. I know you believe in the value of fertility (as do I), but when the fertility rate is any higher than two, what you're describing is literally impossible. You can't keep the kids in the house when you have seven of them and they all get married and have seven of their own and so on.

That's not what he said at all. He said that households were multigenerational, not that every child lived in the same house. Many homes had grandparents, parents and several children under one roof. Down the street, some of the adult children had their own kids and maybe their significant other's parents. That was normal, hell... watch the Waltons every once in a while for crying out loud. It kept families close, support networks complete and community abundant.

But I'm sure your idea of isolationism has worked better for families. Latchkey kids barely knowing their parents or extended families. Grandparents getting unloaded at retirement homes. Cousins as complete strangers. All the while, everyone's children get raised by strangers and the government. Next thing you know, our country will be led by reality tv stars... wait...

 

[ACamp1900]

Whiskey moved that mess here just to bury my Asian momies... racist bastard.

 

[wizards8507]

That's not what he said at all. He said that households were multigenerational, not that every child lived in the same house. Many homes had grandparents, parents and several children under one roof. Down the street, some of the adult children had their own kids and maybe their significant other's parents. That was normal, hell... watch the Waltons every once in a while for crying out loud. It kept families close, support networks complete and community abundant.

But I'm sure your idea of isolationism has worked better for families. Latchkey kids barely knowing their parents or extended families. Grandparents getting unloaded at retirement homes. Cousins as complete strangers. All the while, everyone's children get raised by strangers and the government.

I'm the oldest of fifteen cousins on a single side and I see them all the time. Nice try though.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't even pass the common sense test. The fertility rate was over seven live births per woman in 1800, and only recently has fallen to around the replacement rate of two live births per woman. I know you believe in the value of fertility (as do I), but when the fertility rate is any higher than two, what you're describing is literally impossible. You can't keep the kids in the house when you have seven of them and they all get married and have seven of their own and so on.

Your talent for pedantry is impressive. The goal isn't for every household to literally contain 3+ generations, but for families to live close enough together so that they can help each other regularly. For some, that will actually involve living under the same roof. For others, it may mean living next door, or a couple blocks over. The same benefits accrue either way. What should be avoided when possible, and recognized as a serious burden when not, is a system that regularly forces families to live far enough apart that they are unable to provide meaningful assistance for each other in their day-to-day lives.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm the oldest of fifteen cousins on a single side and I see them all the time. Nice try though.

What is "all the time"?

How often are your parents with your kids?

 

[wizards8507]

Your talent for pedantry is impressive. The goal isn't for every household to literally contain 3+ generations, but for families to live close enough together so that they can help each other regularly. For some, that will actually involve living under the same roof. For others, it may mean living next door, or a couple blocks over. The same benefits accrue either way. What should be avoided when possible, and recognized as a serious burden when not, is a system that regularly forces families to live far enough apart that they are unable to provide meaningful assistance for each other in their day-to-day lives.

I agree with all of that, but not at the expense of all else. This conversation started with a tweet storm slamming Kevin D. Williamson for articles like The White Ghetto. Know what's a bigger burden than liven a few hours from your parents? Abject poverty and meth addiction. But sure, live close to grandma and grandpa so you can drive one another to the hospital when you OD.

How often are your parents with your kids?

On average, at least once every couple of weeks. But it's not a visit for a couple of hours, it's two or three nights overnight. Grace sees my mother in-law less frequently, but longer duration. A week long visit every couple of months with weekend visits sprinkled in. We also vacation with the extended family. Our next Disney trip will have my parents and one sister there along with us.

 

[woolybug25]

I agree with all of that, but not at the expense of all else. This conversation started with a tweet storm slamming Kevin D. Williamson for articles like The White Ghetto. Know what's a bigger burden than liven a few hours from your parents? Abject poverty and meth addiction. But sure, live close to grandma and grandpa so you can drive one another to the hospital when you OD.

Those are mutually exclusive. One could argue that lack of familial support and community leads to increased drug abuse. This hole you are digging keeps getting deeper. Pretty soon you'll be in China.

Take pics for Acamp.

 

[wizards8507]

Those are mutually exclusive.

I assume you mean "aren't mutually exclusive."

But they absolutely are mutually exclusive if you're from one of these dying "Trump Towns." There are places in this country where there literally isn't any work, but that doesn't mean there's no work to be had for those willing to move for it. None of what I'm talking about has anything to do with me. I'm a coastal elite globalist liberal, we've already established that. I'm talking about THOSE people. The Trump supporters.

 

[Irish#1]

On average, at least once every couple of weeks. But it's not a visit for a couple of hours, it's two or three nights overnight. Grace sees my mother in-law less frequently, but longer duration. A week long visit every couple of months with weekend visits sprinkled in. We also vacation with the extended family. Our next Disney trip will have my parents and one sister there along with us.

I start getting withdrawal symptoms if I go without seeing all nine of my grandkids every couple of weeks.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I agree with all of that, but not at the expense of all else. This conversation started with a tweet storm slamming Kevin D. Williamson for articles like The White Ghetto. Know what's a bigger burden than liven a few hours from your parents? Abject poverty and meth addiction. But sure, live close to grandma and grandpa so you can drive one another to the hospital when you OD.

BlackpilledPete was responding to this specific tweet:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I've never understood this kind of sentimentality. Who mourns for Studebaker? Woolworth? <a href="https://t.co/taHAFHh2e3">https://t.co/taHAFHh2e3</a></p>— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) <a href="https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/883530447795273728">July 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

KDW sees these companies going under and thinks, "Creative destruction! Progress! The Invisible Hand in action!" Trump supporters see families torn apart either by the need to relocate or by addiction and despair if they opt to stick together. And all while our elites pat themselves on the back for enabling the whole thing.

You act like these sorts of situations are an unalloyed good-- society benefits from increased efficiency, while the vice-ridden and the uneducated get their just desserts. Putting the very best possible spin on it, it's a tragic sacrifice justified by a much greater good. More likely it's just the logical outworking of an inhumane system that prioritizes abstractions like efficiency over human flourishing.