Do you believe in the American Dream? (1 Viewer)

[Ilov80s]

Moreso now than ever. There are many segments of our society that faced major barriers in the past. Many of those barriers have been removed. If you are a minority, disabled, etc. you now have chances that you never had in 50s when the American Dream was at it's suppossed zenith.

 

[Dentist]

Anyone read the book "the Millionaire next door"?

great book... although a Million bucks just isn't what it used to be anymore..

I enjoyed a lot of what that author had to say about society.... with this caveat: Essentially at the end of the day he decided you were a success if you were an accumulator who made a ton of money and didn't spend said money and built a legacy.... life was well lived if you accomplished a lot in your life.

I live my life similarly to the Millionaire next door.. but I don't give a crap about leaving a legacy or "accomplishing anything"... Life is well lived to me if you don't have to do anything you don't want to do... the goal should be freedom... freedom from having to make money or work.

Great book. Everyone should read it. Its pretty simple approach, but still a good read.

The thing that kind of shook me was how many people achieve affluence, but then the children suffer from affluenza and proceed down the ladder rather than taking it further.

I am the way I am because my parents gave me relatively little as a child.... I never thought we had very much money as a child (and part of it was because my dad was making us poor because of some highly leveraged bets on commercial real estate that really ultimately paid off)... I worked hard as a teen mowing lawns for my own money and everything... then all of a sudden when those real estate bets worked out all of a sudden I had a fully paid professional education and some pretty sweet vacations.... but what was instilled in me when I was young has carried me.

I don't live nearly as light as my parents did when I was growing up... although certainly well below my means... I hope that i can transfer that same sense of work ethic to my son... but I'm afraid it's going to be more challenging... my dad had me when his practice was young and he wasn't thriving... and was spending all available money on those real estate bets.

I waited much longer to have a child and thus I'm already successful and am not going to make any wild real estate bets so I won't be cash poor when it comes to vacations or cable or video games or clothing and stuff... is that going to lead to affluenza?

 

[jwb]

Kinda hard to given the dominance of corporate America and our ridiculously dysfunctional government. Remove those obstacles and sky's the limit.

Isn't corporate America a part of the dream, though? As in, you too can become a vice-president in a large corporation if you work hard enough, and you'll become rich if you do.

Kids are making six figures becoming internet celebritys on youtube. Large corporations will pay all kinds of money just for eyeballs. Some guy invented a freaking camera filter for a smartphone, hooked it up to blogging software, and made a BILLION freaking dollars. Never at any point in history has it required less work or ingenuity to become a freaking millionaire/billionaire.

Yea, but you're pointing to the exception and saying "see, see". You may as well say "the guy who invented the pet rock..." that was trotted out 30 years ago.

Also, "inventing a camera filter for a smartphone, and hooking it to blogging software" is something probably less than 1% of the population can even begin to attempt. And getting youtube eyeballs is astonishingly hard. Don't look at the lack of sweat equity that the one guy who does it put in and say "gee, that seems easy". It's not.

It's never EASY to get rich, aside from the rare lottery winners. It pretty much always requires either an unusually good idea, or hard work.

The point is that it's easier now than it was 50-100 years ago. What options did a guy have in the 50's to get rich???

The internet has changed everything and brought education into everyone's homes. A person can continually learn and teach themselves in ways that simply weren't possible 50 years ago.

It is and it isn't amazing that so many argue this point. To me, it seems self-evident and logical. But then, most people that you talk to are complainers that complain about their job, company, life, etc. So I guess it shouldn't be surprising.

Anyone in the 50's could have written a best seller. There. There's the YouTube of that generation.

I don't see it as any easier today. There are more avenues, sure. But there are more people using them, too.

 

[Ilov80s]

Kinda hard to given the dominance of corporate America and our ridiculously dysfunctional government. Remove those obstacles and sky's the limit.

Isn't corporate America a part of the dream, though? As in, you too can become a vice-president in a large corporation if you work hard enough, and you'll become rich if you do.

Kids are making six figures becoming internet celebritys on youtube. Large corporations will pay all kinds of money just for eyeballs. Some guy invented a freaking camera filter for a smartphone, hooked it up to blogging software, and made a BILLION freaking dollars. Never at any point in history has it required less work or ingenuity to become a freaking millionaire/billionaire.

Yea, but you're pointing to the exception and saying "see, see". You may as well say "the guy who invented the pet rock..." that was trotted out 30 years ago.

Also, "inventing a camera filter for a smartphone, and hooking it to blogging software" is something probably less than 1% of the population can even begin to attempt. And getting youtube eyeballs is astonishingly hard. Don't look at the lack of sweat equity that the one guy who does it put in and say "gee, that seems easy". It's not.

It's never EASY to get rich, aside from the rare lottery winners. It pretty much always requires either an unusually good idea, or hard work.

The point is that it's easier now than it was 50-100 years ago. What options did a guy have in the 50's to get rich???

The internet has changed everything and brought education into everyone's homes. A person can continually learn and teach themselves in ways that simply weren't possible 50 years ago.

It is and it isn't amazing that so many argue this point. To me, it seems self-evident and logical. But then, most people that you talk to are complainers that complain about their job, company, life, etc. So I guess it shouldn't be surprising.

Anyone in the 50's could have written a best seller. There. There's the YouTube of that generation.

I don't see it as any easier today. There are more avenues, sure. But there are more people using them, too.

Except we still have best selling books and people still get rich as authors, plus all the other ways to make money. It's not like being a best selling author has turned into a minimum wage career path.

 

[mr roboto]

Yes it is. And as a 31 year old I see a lot of my contemporaries unwilling to try for it. It's not even that hard to stand out from the crowd in the professional world anymore. A lot of mediocrity floating around.

Now if you define the American dream as college>employment>30 years of consistent raise/promotion at the same job>pension or big 401K then yes, that's not the same as it was 50 years ago. Our economy is set up for those who bring extra value. Not just the Silicon Valkey startups, but anyone in a professional role can rise above their peers with even above average work ethic, follow through and ingenuity.

 

[Jayrod]

One central aspect of the dream that has been pervasive in our society is that anyone can become rich. All you need to do is come up with an new idea, and market it correctly, and you can become a millionaire.

Another aspect is that if you work 40 hours or more a week and are honest and forthright and save your money, you can afford to buy a house, send your kids to college, and have retirement money for your old age.

I didn't read through the thread and I'm not sure if this was addressed much (probably has been), but I completely agree with the first line and do not agree with the second.

The first line requires a lot of personal effort and attention to detail. The second line is really a coasters mentality and a lot of people have been burned by just putting in their time and expect the good life in retirement. It has worked out for some, but not all and is honestly very dependent on luck of the draw, or rather the retirement vehicle they chose. There is some amount of luck required in the first line, but it is more of the type where good luck can help you along, but bad luck will only delay your success.

 

[Christo]

Kinda hard to given the dominance of corporate America and our ridiculously dysfunctional government. Remove those obstacles and sky's the limit.

Isn't corporate America a part of the dream, though? As in, you too can become a vice-president in a large corporation if you work hard enough, and you'll become rich if you do.

Kids are making six figures becoming internet celebritys on youtube. Large corporations will pay all kinds of money just for eyeballs. Some guy invented a freaking camera filter for a smartphone, hooked it up to blogging software, and made a BILLION freaking dollars. Never at any point in history has it required less work or ingenuity to become a freaking millionaire/billionaire.

Yea, but you're pointing to the exception and saying "see, see". You may as well say "the guy who invented the pet rock..." that was trotted out 30 years ago.

Also, "inventing a camera filter for a smartphone, and hooking it to blogging software" is something probably less than 1% of the population can even begin to attempt. And getting youtube eyeballs is astonishingly hard. Don't look at the lack of sweat equity that the one guy who does it put in and say "gee, that seems easy". It's not.

It's never EASY to get rich, aside from the rare lottery winners. It pretty much always requires either an unusually good idea, or hard work.

The point is that it's easier now than it was 50-100 years ago. What options did a guy have in the 50's to get rich???

The internet has changed everything and brought education into everyone's homes. A person can continually learn and teach themselves in ways that simply weren't possible 50 years ago.

It is and it isn't amazing that so many argue this point. To me, it seems self-evident and logical. But then, most people that you talk to are complainers that complain about their job, company, life, etc. So I guess it shouldn't be surprising.

Anyone in the 50's could have written a best seller. There. There's the YouTube of that generation.

I don't see it as any easier today. There are more avenues, sure. But there are more people using them, too.

Except we still have best selling books and people still get rich as authors, plus all the other ways to make money. It's not like being a best selling author has turned into a minimum wage career path.

Hell, Random House doesn't like your book? Publish it yourself.

 

[Christo]

Yeah, I'm really not getting this "technology has made it harder to create the life you want" argument.

 

[timschochet]

The 50s had different ways of getting rich, many of which are not available today. Roy Krok noticed that two brothers in San Bernardino were good at making cheap hamburgers, purchased their brand, and opened up drive-thrus across the country. Sam Phillips listened to jump blues and decided that it could be popular among white teenagers if he could find a young good looking white guy to perform it.

But the biggest difference between then and now in terms of potential wealth was the cheap price of real estate in suburbia.

 

[Clifford]

Kinda hard to given the dominance of corporate America and our ridiculously dysfunctional government. Remove those obstacles and sky's the limit.

Isn't corporate America a part of the dream, though? As in, you too can become a vice-president in a large corporation if you work hard enough, and you'll become rich if you do.

Kids are making six figures becoming internet celebritys on youtube. Large corporations will pay all kinds of money just for eyeballs. Some guy invented a freaking camera filter for a smartphone, hooked it up to blogging software, and made a BILLION freaking dollars. Never at any point in history has it required less work or ingenuity to become a freaking millionaire/billionaire.

Yea, but you're pointing to the exception and saying "see, see". You may as well say "the guy who invented the pet rock..." that was trotted out 30 years ago.

Also, "inventing a camera filter for a smartphone, and hooking it to blogging software" is something probably less than 1% of the population can even begin to attempt. And getting youtube eyeballs is astonishingly hard. Don't look at the lack of sweat equity that the one guy who does it put in and say "gee, that seems easy". It's not.

Not supposed to be easy

 

[Christo]

The 50s had different ways of getting rich, many of which are not available today. Roy Krok noticed that two brothers in San Bernardino were good at making cheap hamburgers, purchased their brand, and opened up drive-thrus across the country. Sam Phillips listened to jump blues and decided that it could be popular among white teenagers if he could find a young good looking white guy to perform it.

But the biggest difference between then and now in terms of potential wealth was the cheap price of real estate in suburbia.

Name these "many" ways to get rich in the 50's.

 

[StrikeS2k]

The 50s had different ways of getting rich, many of which are not available today. Roy Krok noticed that two brothers in San Bernardino were good at making cheap hamburgers, purchased their brand, and opened up drive-thrus across the country. Sam Phillips listened to jump blues and decided that it could be popular among white teenagers if he could find a young good looking white guy to perform it.

But the biggest difference between then and now in terms of potential wealth was the cheap price of real estate in suburbia.

Yeah, because no one else has opened a fast food restaurant and gotten rich since Roy Krok!!!

 

[mr roboto]

The 50s had different ways of getting rich, many of which are not available today. Roy Krok noticed that two brothers in San Bernardino were good at making cheap hamburgers, purchased their brand, and opened up drive-thrus across the country. Sam Phillips listened to jump blues and decided that it could be popular among white teenagers if he could find a young good looking white guy to perform it.

But the biggest difference between then and now in terms of potential wealth was the cheap price of real estate in suburbia.

What? New brands, concepts, music, franchises, real estate investments are popping up all the time. So there's not as much cheap suburban development. Now there's urban renewal, farm land has been very lucrative etc. In fact, there are more niches to exploit (he he) now then there was in the 50s simply because there's more people and more sub-cultural groups.

 

[timschochet]

The 50s had different ways of getting rich, many of which are not available today. Roy Krok noticed that two brothers in San Bernardino were good at making cheap hamburgers, purchased their brand, and opened up drive-thrus across the country. Sam Phillips listened to jump blues and decided that it could be popular among white teenagers if he could find a young good looking white guy to perform it.

But the biggest difference between then and now in terms of potential wealth was the cheap price of real estate in suburbia.

Name these "many" ways to get rich in the 50's.

Poodle skirts?

 

[timschochet]

I'm not suggesting the 50s were a better time for economic development, or worse. It was just very different.

 

[timschochet]

Davy Crockett hats! Hula hoops!

 

[shader]

Kinda hard to given the dominance of corporate America and our ridiculously dysfunctional government. Remove those obstacles and sky's the limit.

Isn't corporate America a part of the dream, though? As in, you too can become a vice-president in a large corporation if you work hard enough, and you'll become rich if you do.

Kids are making six figures becoming internet celebritys on youtube. Large corporations will pay all kinds of money just for eyeballs. Some guy invented a freaking camera filter for a smartphone, hooked it up to blogging software, and made a BILLION freaking dollars. Never at any point in history has it required less work or ingenuity to become a freaking millionaire/billionaire.

Yea, but you're pointing to the exception and saying "see, see". You may as well say "the guy who invented the pet rock..." that was trotted out 30 years ago.

Also, "inventing a camera filter for a smartphone, and hooking it to blogging software" is something probably less than 1% of the population can even begin to attempt. And getting youtube eyeballs is astonishingly hard. Don't look at the lack of sweat equity that the one guy who does it put in and say "gee, that seems easy". It's not.

It's never EASY to get rich, aside from the rare lottery winners. It pretty much always requires either an unusually good idea, or hard work.

The point is that it's easier now than it was 50-100 years ago. What options did a guy have in the 50's to get rich???

The internet has changed everything and brought education into everyone's homes. A person can continually learn and teach themselves in ways that simply weren't possible 50 years ago.

It is and it isn't amazing that so many argue this point. To me, it seems self-evident and logical. But then, most people that you talk to are complainers that complain about their job, company, life, etc. So I guess it shouldn't be surprising.

Anyone in the 50's could have written a best seller. There. There's the YouTube of that generation.

I don't see it as any easier today. There are more avenues, sure. But there are more people using them, too.

Yeah, and today you can still write a best seller AND youtube, AND apps, AND the myriad of other way to succeed with the internet and technology.

 

[mr roboto]

I'm not suggesting the 50s were a better time for economic development, or worse. It was just very different.

You said different, then listed food franchises (Jimmy Johns, 5 Guys, dozens of frozen yogurt stores etc), new music (as much as I hate him, Bieber, American Idol contestants, rap artists, country artists etc) and cheap real estate (many people made a killing in the last 4 years, urban redevelopment, farm land). I'm not seeing 'very different'.

 

[shader]

The 50s had different ways of getting rich, many of which are not available today. Roy Krok noticed that two brothers in San Bernardino were good at making cheap hamburgers, purchased their brand, and opened up drive-thrus across the country. Sam Phillips listened to jump blues and decided that it could be popular among white teenagers if he could find a young good looking white guy to perform it.

But the biggest difference between then and now in terms of potential wealth was the cheap price of real estate in suburbia.

Five Guys opened in 1986 and exploded in the last 5-10 years.

You can still make a ton of money opening restaurants now, perhaps even more than in the past.

 

[mr roboto]

Davy Crockett hats! Hula hoops!

Under Armor! Snuggies! Video Games!

 

[Eminence]

Here's the new American Dream, baby:

Step 1.) Get drunk / crunk.

Step 2.) Have unprotected sex.

Step 3.) Enjoy your government handouts.

Repeat.

 

[Jayrod]

Here's the new American Dream, baby:

Step 1.) Get drunk / crunk.

Step 2.) Have unprotected sex.

Step 3.) Enjoy your government handouts.

Repeat.

Wait, this guy is still alive? When did this happen?

 

[mr roboto]

Here's the new American Dream, baby:

Step 1.) Get drunk / crunk.

Step 2.) Have unprotected sex.

Step 3.) Enjoy your government handouts.

Repeat.

Wait, this guy is still alive? When did this happen?

Akbar.

 

[shader]

The 50's are looked upon with nostalgia, but not having lived through them, I can't really speak to what they were really like.

But from what I've heard, it seems as if people in general were more content, happy to go to work and earn a living, happy to have a TV and watch funny shows on this amazing new technology, etc.

But in no way do I think it was easy to GET RICH in the 50's. But then in the 50's I don't think people in general cared that much about being rich. It seems like they were more content to work hard and save money.

Today, no one wants to work hard, most people blow their money, and even more people spend money they don't have to inflate the economy. Overall, I think it's a recipe for disaster long-term, as at some point an economy fueled by the masses going into debt can't continue.

But you have to have your head in the sand to not see the opportunities for riches that have exploded in the past 25 years.

Is this a good thing? I don't think so. In general people seem more unhappy, and everyone wants to be rich. The "American Dream" isn't a big deal anymore, because many people aren't content with their house, car, iphone and 2 tv's. They want more, they want riches, but they don't want to work for it.

 

[Politician Spock]

I wonder what impact the Gen X's inheriting the assets of their Baby Boomer parents' estates will have as the boomers die off.

Will the wealth be able to assist the X-ers in their own retirements?

If the Boomers' house was paid off, will the X-ers move into them and sell off their own homes (or sell their parents' home to pay for their own)?

Will the Boomer wealth be used to pay off their Gen-Y grandchildren's school debt?

For example, my parents' house is paid off. If they leave that to me and I decide to live there, then I don't have that life expense anymore. Frees up more income for me to do other things.

The baby boom moving into selling assets mode after being in obtaining asset mode in the 80's and 90's is why our economy has been so bad the last 10 years, and will be bad for another 10 to 20. When a huge chunk of the population is buying assets, assets become more valuable because of increased demand. When that same huge chunk of the population is selling assets, assets become less valuable because of increased supply. This is why quantative easing is being done, and will have to be done for the next 10 to 20 years. It's the only thing keeping asset prices from falling.

 

[jwb]

How did this "American Dream" discussion go to striking it rich online (or similar)?

It's a meaningless argument.

Fine, you win. There are more avenues now to millionaire-hood, and there's no barrier to entry (just make smartphone photo filters and link em to a blog! Yea!)

Seriously, any of you guys saying how much more golden opportunity there is partake in it? Anyone? Or your kids? Anyone hit seven figures from YouTube? And I ask this as a guy who makes 100% of his living online, working for himself.

 

[Eminence]

How did this "American Dream" discussion go to striking it rich online (or similar)?

It's a meaningless argument.

Fine, you win. There are more avenues now to millionaire-hood, and there's no barrier to entry (just make smartphone photo filters and link em to a blog! Yea!)

Seriously, any of you guys saying how much more golden opportunity there is partake in it? Anyone? Or your kids? Anyone hit seven figures from YouTube? And I ask this as a guy who makes 100% of his living online, working for himself.

I think the argument is more or less, is it available to everyone? Back in the day, the man could work a job while his wife stayed at home and most people made enough money for a white picket fence and a 'normal' family. Nowadays, if you don't have an education you are screwed and both Mommy and Daddy need to work to make ends meet.

So, in a non-sarcastic response to this thread:

No, the American Dream isn't dead. One must now either:

A.) Have a Bachelors Degree.

B.) Work your way up a company.

...and then find a women who's head isn't completely twisted around by this feminist / women's rights movement and isn't too caught up on "being her own person" to want to settle down and start a family. It's much harder and not accessible to everyone but it still exists. Rather, there's a consolation prize for people who don't realize the dream and it's called living off the government.

 

[jwb]

How did this "American Dream" discussion go to striking it rich online (or similar)?

It's a meaningless argument.

Fine, you win. There are more avenues now to millionaire-hood, and there's no barrier to entry (just make smartphone photo filters and link em to a blog! Yea!)

Seriously, any of you guys saying how much more golden opportunity there is partake in it? Anyone? Or your kids? Anyone hit seven figures from YouTube? And I ask this as a guy who makes 100% of his living online, working for himself.

I think the argument is more or less, is it available to everyone? Back in the day, the man could work a job while his wife stayed at home and most people made enough money for a white picket fence and a 'normal' family. Nowadays, if you don't have an education you are screwed and both Mommy and Daddy need to work to make ends meet.

So, in a non-sarcastic response to this thread:

No, the American Dream isn't dead. One must now either:

A.) Have a Bachelors Degree.

B.) Work your way up a company.

...and then find a women who's head isn't completely twisted around by this feminist / women's rights movement and isn't too caught up on "being her own person" to want to settle down and start a family. It's much harder and not accessible to everyone but it still exists. Rather, there's a consolation prize for people who don't realize the dream and it's called living off the government.

But it was always available to everyone. Even someone who lived in a three-sided shack could be president.

Well ok, women and minorities didn't fare well back then. But I think the discussion really got sidetracked into 'is opportunity available to everyone?' But it is page 3, also. That's about where it fragments.

 

[jwb]

Goodness does this board die when the workday ends.

Nose to the grindstone, fellas.

 

[Ilov80s]

How did this "American Dream" discussion go to striking it rich online (or similar)?

It's a meaningless argument.

Fine, you win. There are more avenues now to millionaire-hood, and there's no barrier to entry (just make smartphone photo filters and link em to a blog! Yea!)

Seriously, any of you guys saying how much more golden opportunity there is partake in it? Anyone? Or your kids? Anyone hit seven figures from YouTube? And I ask this as a guy who makes 100% of his living online, working for himself.

I think the argument is more or less, is it available to everyone? Back in the day, the man could work a job while his wife stayed at home and most people made enough money for a white picket fence and a 'normal' family. Nowadays, if you don't have an education you are screwed and both Mommy and Daddy need to work to make ends meet.

So, in a non-sarcastic response to this thread:

No, the American Dream isn't dead. One must now either:

A.) Have a Bachelors Degree.

B.) Work your way up a company.

...and then find a women who's head isn't completely twisted around by this feminist / women's rights movement and isn't too caught up on "being her own person" to want to settle down and start a family. It's much harder and not accessible to everyone but it still exists. Rather, there's a consolation prize for people who don't realize the dream and it's called living off the government.

Sexist much?

 

[Eminence]

How did this "American Dream" discussion go to striking it rich online (or similar)?

It's a meaningless argument.

Fine, you win. There are more avenues now to millionaire-hood, and there's no barrier to entry (just make smartphone photo filters and link em to a blog! Yea!)

Seriously, any of you guys saying how much more golden opportunity there is partake in it? Anyone? Or your kids? Anyone hit seven figures from YouTube? And I ask this as a guy who makes 100% of his living online, working for himself.

I think the argument is more or less, is it available to everyone? Back in the day, the man could work a job while his wife stayed at home and most people made enough money for a white picket fence and a 'normal' family. Nowadays, if you don't have an education you are screwed and both Mommy and Daddy need to work to make ends meet.

So, in a non-sarcastic response to this thread:

No, the American Dream isn't dead. One must now either:

A.) Have a Bachelors Degree.

B.) Work your way up a company.

...and then find a women who's head isn't completely twisted around by this feminist / women's rights movement and isn't too caught up on "being her own person" to want to settle down and start a family. It's much harder and not accessible to everyone but it still exists. Rather, there's a consolation prize for people who don't realize the dream and it's called living off the government.

Sexist much?

Debatable. By nature, men are strong and shoulder the load; protect and provide for the family out of love. A women is tender, soft, and loving. They nurture the family and help raise smart, responsible kids.

The man and woman are equals, neither can replace the other or replicate.

This is the model that works and is by nature in my opinion. I guess things change and that "nature" isn't always right but who gets to pick the rules and why?

I prefer a nuclear family, I'm not dogging other ways of life. But to me the American dream perished with the nuclear family.

Now mom and dad work and TV / the internet raise your kids; McDonalds feeds them; the government supports the irresponsible.

Obviously some of this is hyperbole but things are definitely changing for the worse and moving in a bad direction.

 

[Ilov80s]

How did this "American Dream" discussion go to striking it rich online (or similar)?

It's a meaningless argument.

Fine, you win. There are more avenues now to millionaire-hood, and there's no barrier to entry (just make smartphone photo filters and link em to a blog! Yea!)

Seriously, any of you guys saying how much more golden opportunity there is partake in it? Anyone? Or your kids? Anyone hit seven figures from YouTube? And I ask this as a guy who makes 100% of his living online, working for himself.

I think the argument is more or less, is it available to everyone? Back in the day, the man could work a job while his wife stayed at home and most people made enough money for a white picket fence and a 'normal' family. Nowadays, if you don't have an education you are screwed and both Mommy and Daddy need to work to make ends meet.

So, in a non-sarcastic response to this thread:

No, the American Dream isn't dead. One must now either:

A.) Have a Bachelors Degree.

B.) Work your way up a company.

...and then find a women who's head isn't completely twisted around by this feminist / women's rights movement and isn't too caught up on "being her own person" to want to settle down and start a family. It's much harder and not accessible to everyone but it still exists. Rather, there's a consolation prize for people who don't realize the dream and it's called living off the government.

Sexist much?

Debatable. By nature, men are strong and shoulder the load; protect and provide for the family out of love. A women is tender, soft, and loving. They nurture the family and help raise smart, responsible kids.The man and woman are equals, neither can replace the other or replicate.

This is the model that works and is by nature in my opinion. I guess things change and that "nature" isn't always right but who gets to pick the rules and why?

I prefer a nuclear family, I'm not dogging other ways of life. But to me the American dream perished with the nuclear family.

Now mom and dad work and TV / the internet raise your kids; McDonalds feeds them; the government supports the irresponsible.

Obviously some of this is hyperbole but things are definitely changing for the worse and moving in a bad direction.

Ignoring all your speculation, what is your proof for believing that things are getting worse/moving in a bad direction?

 

[timschochet]

I'm not surprised you can't find any women to date you, Eminence.

 

[Christo]

I'm not surprised you can't find any women to date you, Eminence.

Sure, because women never date guys who think like that.

 

[Eminence]

How did this "American Dream" discussion go to striking it rich online (or similar)?

It's a meaningless argument.

Fine, you win. There are more avenues now to millionaire-hood, and there's no barrier to entry (just make smartphone photo filters and link em to a blog! Yea!)

Seriously, any of you guys saying how much more golden opportunity there is partake in it? Anyone? Or your kids? Anyone hit seven figures from YouTube? And I ask this as a guy who makes 100% of his living online, working for himself.

I think the argument is more or less, is it available to everyone? Back in the day, the man could work a job while his wife stayed at home and most people made enough money for a white picket fence and a 'normal' family. Nowadays, if you don't have an education you are screwed and both Mommy and Daddy need to work to make ends meet.

So, in a non-sarcastic response to this thread:

No, the American Dream isn't dead. One must now either:

A.) Have a Bachelors Degree.

B.) Work your way up a company.

...and then find a women who's head isn't completely twisted around by this feminist / women's rights movement and isn't too caught up on "being her own person" to want to settle down and start a family. It's much harder and not accessible to everyone but it still exists. Rather, there's a consolation prize for people who don't realize the dream and it's called living off the government.

Sexist much?

Debatable. By nature, men are strong and shoulder the load; protect and provide for the family out of love. A women is tender, soft, and loving. They nurture the family and help raise smart, responsible kids.The man and woman are equals, neither can replace the other or replicate.

This is the model that works and is by nature in my opinion. I guess things change and that "nature" isn't always right but who gets to pick the rules and why?

I prefer a nuclear family, I'm not dogging other ways of life. But to me the American dream perished with the nuclear family.

Now mom and dad work and TV / the internet raise your kids; McDonalds feeds them; the government supports the irresponsible.

Obviously some of this is hyperbole but things are definitely changing for the worse and moving in a bad direction.

Ignoring all your speculation, what is your proof or reading that things are getting worse/moving in a bad direction?

On average both parents need to work, no? Less respectable content on TV, no? Rising divorce rates, no? Decreasing belief in God, no? Dollar is losing value, no? Foreign policy looking weak, no? More jobs overseas, no? Plenty of people on government aid, no?

Doesn't sit well knowing how my country was 'x years ago'. Feel free to agree to disagree.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not surprised you can't find any women to date you, Eminence.

Sure, because women never date guys who think like that.

Well, I'm combining this with his money making skills.

 

[Christo]

I'm not surprised you can't find any women to date you, Eminence.

Sure, because women never date guys who think like that.

Well, I'm combining this with his money making skills.

Maybe he needs to move to Alabama.

 

[Christo]

How did this "American Dream" discussion go to striking it rich online (or similar)?

It's a meaningless argument.

Fine, you win. There are more avenues now to millionaire-hood, and there's no barrier to entry (just make smartphone photo filters and link em to a blog! Yea!)

Seriously, any of you guys saying how much more golden opportunity there is partake in it? Anyone? Or your kids? Anyone hit seven figures from YouTube? And I ask this as a guy who makes 100% of his living online, working for himself.

I think the argument is more or less, is it available to everyone? Back in the day, the man could work a job while his wife stayed at home and most people made enough money for a white picket fence and a 'normal' family. Nowadays, if you don't have an education you are screwed and both Mommy and Daddy need to work to make ends meet.

So, in a non-sarcastic response to this thread:

No, the American Dream isn't dead. One must now either:

A.) Have a Bachelors Degree.

B.) Work your way up a company.

...and then find a women who's head isn't completely twisted around by this feminist / women's rights movement and isn't too caught up on "being her own person" to want to settle down and start a family. It's much harder and not accessible to everyone but it still exists. Rather, there's a consolation prize for people who don't realize the dream and it's called living off the government.

Sexist much?

Debatable. By nature, men are strong and shoulder the load; protect and provide for the family out of love. A women is tender, soft, and loving. They nurture the family and help raise smart, responsible kids.The man and woman are equals, neither can replace the other or replicate.

This is the model that works and is by nature in my opinion. I guess things change and that "nature" isn't always right but who gets to pick the rules and why?

I prefer a nuclear family, I'm not dogging other ways of life. But to me the American dream perished with the nuclear family.

Now mom and dad work and TV / the internet raise your kids; McDonalds feeds them; the government supports the irresponsible.

Obviously some of this is hyperbole but things are definitely changing for the worse and moving in a bad direction.

Ignoring all your speculation, what is your proof or reading that things are getting worse/moving in a bad direction?

On average both parents need to work, no? Less respectable content on TV, no? Rising divorce rates, no? Decreasing belief in God, no? Dollar is losing value, no? Foreign policy looking weak, no? More jobs overseas, no? Plenty of people on government aid, no?

Doesn't sit well knowing how my country was 'x years ago'. Feel free to agree to disagree.

Rising divorce rates are a good thing. More realistic TV is a good thing. Decreased belief in god is a good thing.

 

[Ilov80s]

How did this "American Dream" discussion go to striking it rich online (or similar)?

It's a meaningless argument.

Fine, you win. There are more avenues now to millionaire-hood, and there's no barrier to entry (just make smartphone photo filters and link em to a blog! Yea!)

Seriously, any of you guys saying how much more golden opportunity there is partake in it? Anyone? Or your kids? Anyone hit seven figures from YouTube? And I ask this as a guy who makes 100% of his living online, working for himself.

I think the argument is more or less, is it available to everyone? Back in the day, the man could work a job while his wife stayed at home and most people made enough money for a white picket fence and a 'normal' family. Nowadays, if you don't have an education you are screwed and both Mommy and Daddy need to work to make ends meet.

So, in a non-sarcastic response to this thread:

No, the American Dream isn't dead. One must now either:

A.) Have a Bachelors Degree.

B.) Work your way up a company.

...and then find a women who's head isn't completely twisted around by this feminist / women's rights movement and isn't too caught up on "being her own person" to want to settle down and start a family. It's much harder and not accessible to everyone but it still exists. Rather, there's a consolation prize for people who don't realize the dream and it's called living off the government.

Sexist much?

Debatable. By nature, men are strong and shoulder the load; protect and provide for the family out of love. A women is tender, soft, and loving. They nurture the family and help raise smart, responsible kids.The man and woman are equals, neither can replace the other or replicate.

This is the model that works and is by nature in my opinion. I guess things change and that "nature" isn't always right but who gets to pick the rules and why?

I prefer a nuclear family, I'm not dogging other ways of life. But to me the American dream perished with the nuclear family.

Now mom and dad work and TV / the internet raise your kids; McDonalds feeds them; the government supports the irresponsible.

Obviously some of this is hyperbole but things are definitely changing for the worse and moving in a bad direction.

Ignoring all your speculation, what is your proof or reading that things are getting worse/moving in a bad direction?

On average both parents need to work, no? Less respectable content on TV, no? Rising divorce rates, no? Decreasing belief in God, no? Dollar is losing value, no? Foreign policy looking weak, no? More jobs overseas, no? Plenty of people on government aid, no?Doesn't sit well knowing how my country was 'x years ago'. Feel free to agree to disagree.

I don't have time to respond to all of that and Christo nailed some. I'll take the first point about needing 2 incomes. Families could live like they did in 1960 on 1 income. Just get a moderate sized home, 1 car, 1 small tv, no cable, no cell phones, no internet, no computer, no tablet, no Xbox, no Netflix, not microwave, no washer/dryer, no dishwasher, etc. We are choosing to spend more which is why we need so much more money. It's part of enjoying all the benefits modernity and the developing American Dream can allow for.

 

[Ilov80s]

Also, for our improved foreign policy: We spent much the 50s, 60s and 70s dancing on the edge of all out nuclear war and/or engaged in horrific, costly and (mostly) fruitless war.

 

[mr roboto]

How did this "American Dream" discussion go to striking it rich online (or similar)?

It's a meaningless argument.

Fine, you win. There are more avenues now to millionaire-hood, and there's no barrier to entry (just make smartphone photo filters and link em to a blog! Yea!)

Seriously, any of you guys saying how much more golden opportunity there is partake in it? Anyone? Or your kids? Anyone hit seven figures from YouTube? And I ask this as a guy who makes 100% of his living online, working for himself.

I think the argument is more or less, is it available to everyone? Back in the day, the man could work a job while his wife stayed at home and most people made enough money for a white picket fence and a 'normal' family. Nowadays, if you don't have an education you are screwed and both Mommy and Daddy need to work to make ends meet.

So, in a non-sarcastic response to this thread:

No, the American Dream isn't dead. One must now either:

A.) Have a Bachelors Degree.

B.) Work your way up a company.

...and then find a women who's head isn't completely twisted around by this feminist / women's rights movement and isn't too caught up on "being her own person" to want to settle down and start a family. It's much harder and not accessible to everyone but it still exists. Rather, there's a consolation prize for people who don't realize the dream and it's called living off the government.

Sexist much?

Debatable. By nature, men are strong and shoulder the load; protect and provide for the family out of love. A women is tender, soft, and loving. They nurture the family and help raise smart, responsible kids.The man and woman are equals, neither can replace the other or replicate.

This is the model that works and is by nature in my opinion. I guess things change and that "nature" isn't always right but who gets to pick the rules and why?

I prefer a nuclear family, I'm not dogging other ways of life. But to me the American dream perished with the nuclear family.

Now mom and dad work and TV / the internet raise your kids; McDonalds feeds them; the government supports the irresponsible.

Obviously some of this is hyperbole but things are definitely changing for the worse and moving in a bad direction.

Ignoring all your speculation, what is your proof or reading that things are getting worse/moving in a bad direction?

On average both parents need to work, no? Less respectable content on TV, no? Rising divorce rates, no? Decreasing belief in God, no? Dollar is losing value, no? Foreign policy looking weak, no? More jobs overseas, no? Plenty of people on government aid, no?Doesn't sit well knowing how my country was 'x years ago'. Feel free to agree to disagree.

Rising divorce rates are a good thing. More realistic TV is a good thing. Decreased belief in god is a good thing.

Why are rising divorce rates a good thing? Wouldn't we rather have people couple up effectively? (Except for the divorce attorney of course)

 

[Jayrod]

Christo a lot of what you say is spot on, but in NO way are rising divorce rates a good thing.

 

[Christo]

Christo a lot of what you say is spot on, but in NO way are rising divorce rates a good thing.

Of course they are. It is not healthy for people to stay in marriages that they don't want to be in.

 

[timschochet]

Also, for our improved foreign policy: We spent much the 50s, 60s and 70s dancing on the edge of all out nuclear war and/or engaged in horrific, costly and (mostly) fruitless war.

While that's true, it's also true that we were essentially dealing with one enemy which in the final analysis was rational; the Soviet Union agreed with us that Mutual Assured Destruction was not a viable option, and that's what ultimately kept the peace.

Now we deal with lots of enemies. There is a spread of nuclear weapons which, try as we might, we can't seem to stop. And not all of our future foes may turn out to be as rational with regard to Mutual Assured Destruction as the Soviets were...

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Yeah, "in no way" is hyperbole. "In relatively few ways" is defensible.

 

[timschochet]

Christo a lot of what you say is spot on, but in NO way are rising divorce rates a good thing.

Of course they are. It is not healthy for people to stay in marriages that they don't want to be in.

His statement was simplistic; your answer even more so. It all depends on what's causing the divorces. If people are generally unhappy and made an error getting married in the first place, that's one thing. If it's a result of economic stress due to a worsening economy, that's quite another. And in most cases where there are young children, divorce is going to have negative connotations.

 

[Christo]

Christo a lot of what you say is spot on, but in NO way are rising divorce rates a good thing.

Of course they are. It is not healthy for people to stay in marriages that they don't want to be in.

His statement was simplistic; your answer even more so. It all depends on what's causing the divorces. If people are generally unhappy and made an error getting married in the first place, that's one thing. If it's a result of economic stress due to a worsening economy, that's quite another.

No, it's not.

 

[Ilov80s]

Also, for our improved foreign policy: We spent much the 50s, 60s and 70s dancing on the edge of all out nuclear war and/or engaged in horrific, costly and (mostly) fruitless war.

While that's true, it's also true that we were essentially dealing with one enemy which in the final analysis was rational; the Soviet Union agreed with us that Mutual Assured Destruction was not a viable option, and that's what ultimately kept the peace.Now we deal with lots of enemies. There is a spread of nuclear weapons which, try as we might, we can't seem to stop. And not all of our future foes may turn out to be as rational with regard to Mutual Assured Destruction as the Soviets were...

True, but do far the death count is much lower and at least any immediate threat we are aware of is much less. It is easy to sit here in 2014 and talk about how rational the USSR was and how they weren't actually going to engage us in nuclear war. That's hindsight. It wasn't so clear in 1960.

 

[FUBAR]

Christo a lot of what you say is spot on, but in NO way are rising divorce rates a good thing.

Of course they are. It is not healthy for people to stay in marriages that they don't want to be in.

His statement was simplistic; your answer even more so. It all depends on what's causing the divorces. If people are generally unhappy and made an error getting married in the first place, that's one thing. If it's a result of economic stress due to a worsening economy, that's quite another.

No, it's not.

uh huh!

Seriously, the divorce rate indicates a lot of different things. Taken as one number it's neither a positive nor negative.

Agreed that greater freedom to move on without becoming a pariah is a good thing.

 

[urbanhack]

Goodness does this board die when the workday ends.

Nose to the grindstone, fellas.

but we're all working so hard towards the american dream!