I mean, this is how far our standard of living has fallen in the US.
Like, back in the 80’s and 90’s it was pretty normal for a family to subsist on a single income, in a reasonably nice house, with all of their necessities taken care of. It was so normal that even a brainless loser like Homer could do it.
Also because back then, kinda fat = automatic loser
Frank Grimes pointed out the insanity/luck of his living situation and your last part is true today “bumbling oaf” is still an archetype
Ah, good ol’ Grimey (as he liked to be called).
To be fair a nuclear operator can typically afford to support a family of 5 even today.
This. The show routinely makes fun of the fact that Homer is completely unqualified for his job and seems to keep it because he amuses Burns. They had a whole episode recently about how Homer got a new job over a nuclear engineering PhD because he Cyrano’d the interview via Fink. Meaning his job title likely commands well over $200k, though it is implied that Burns pays him somewhat less than that.
The show quit caring about money because it’s not interesting. The early seasons have money as a constant issue. It’s just not that interesting to she them constantly needing money, so they just stopped.
Except that idea was completely undone by Malcolm in the Middle… The Simpsons just didn’t do it right.
Simpsons did it just fine for years, Malcolm was only 7 seasons, Simpsons is on season 35.
That said, suburbia was built on borrowed money from the future , and the reason why most cities are broke.
It has nothing to do with suburbia.
It has everything to do with the politics of Thatcher and Reagan. Their policies of annihilating unions, human rights and creating tax cuts for the rich by passing on the taxes to the working and the poor created this dystopian reality we now have.
If we cut out the rich and restore what we used to have for rights and protections, we can try to save ourselves from extinction.
The two are related. Oil money supports both the suburban Ponzi scheme and also Reaganite deregulation.
My point is, for a city, every square foot of street has an operational cost, and on top of that infrastructure needs to be rebuilt every x years (I think around 20 ~ 25).
While the upfront cost of said infrastructure tends to come from subventions when building a new development, the city needs to cover the costs for both operations and rebuilding once it’s needed.Why does this matter? Well, detached single-family houses provide lower revenue per square foot of street than middle housing or mid-rises, eventually creating a hole in the city’s pockets.
I’m not explaining it very well, but I’ll suggest taking a look at this:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/6/21/whats-the-sweet-spot-for-building-housing-inexpensively
Climate Town - The suburbs are bleeding America DryIf cities had money, they could build public housing or promote affordable options.
The suburbs are just another part of tax cuts for the rich. They’re subsidized by the tax money from more dense parts of the city, which tend to be more poor (and usually filled with ethnicities other than white people - hence the term White Flight).
Singke family homes with big grassy lawns and McDonald’s parking lots bring in less tax revenue and cost more money in city services per square foot of land than apartment buildings, being a net drain on the budget. So, there are higher taxes on the poor so that the wealthy suburbanites don’t have to see them.
The content of your message is right, but you’re using the wrong terms. You’re referring to middle class suburbanites as rich.
Like, back in the 80’s and 90’s it was pretty normal for a family to subsist on a single income, in a reasonably nice house, with all of their necessities taken care of.
I wonder what “pretty normal” is, according to actual numbers
I remember growing up in the 90’s, my classmates and I all thought that one of the other kids was a liar because he said he didn’t have a yard (he lived in an apartment). It didn’t make sense - everyone else in the class of 30+ kids lived in a house with a yard, so he must just be making stuff up. Obviously that’s anecdotal evidence, but still. It was weird for a kid not to live in a single-family home back then.
You’d have to look at the size of the middle class back then, as that’s what the “American Dream” scenario is based on there, but as a kid born in 1990, I can say that when my dad was looking for apartments when he was around college age in the 60s, the rule was not to rent an apartment that cost more than 25% of your salary. By the time I was around that same age in the late 2000s/early 2010s, it was 50% of your salary. Now, it’s closer to 120% of your salary for those same apartments.
back in the '80s* and '90s*
No, I meant 80-99 AD
Many style manuals allow referring to decades with apostrophes before the s, and no apostrophes before the abbreviated year
Could you provide some example style manuals that say that?
I can give you a stack exchange: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/13631/is-an-apostrophe-with-a-decade-e-g-1920-s-generally-considered-incorrect
In your reference, I think this summarizes the issue nicely:
As others have said previously, the apostrophe is a way to indicate that something in a word is missing. In one case, it may indicate the omission of numbers (ex. '20 instead of 1920). In another case, it indicates the omission of words which may be used to expression possession (ex. 1920’s music instead of "music that was recorded in the decade that began with the year 1920). It is never, never, never used to express plurality.
Too also quote:
The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999) agrees with Words into Type about the apostrophe, although about little else:
decades should usually be given in numerals: the 1990’s; the mid-1970’s; the 90’s. But when a decade begins a sentence it must be spelled out. [example omitted]; often that is reason enough to recast the sentence.
NY Times seems pretty reputable and they like the grocers’ apostrophe, your example is some random person’s summary
It wasn’t normal
Up until Reaganomics hit, ‘Middle Class’ was defined as one Union job supporting a family of four. In 1980, $1 million was still considered a vast fortune. By the time Bush Sr. left office, middle class was two jobs to keep the house going, and $1 million was what a rich guy paid for a party.
I was an adult in the mid 80’s. I was there
So you remember that American housewives started looking for jobs in big numbers after the Oil Crisis of 1972. Before that, only the poorest people needed two jobs.
He’s not? There’s literally an episode about how Homer is so lucky in life that he drives a man insane.
And the man’s estranged bastard son!
He happened to like hookers.
In fairness, that entire episode was lampshade hanging
What is lampshade hanging?
Lampshade Hanging (or, more informally, “Lampshading”) is the writers’ trick of dealing with any element of the story that seems too dubious to take at face value, whether a very implausible plot development or a particularly blatant use of a trope, by calling attention to it and simply moving on.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging
Calling themselves out on how ridiculous the situation is, basically.
I also never heard it before, probably should have, here’s the first part of the definition from TV tropes:
“Lampshade Hanging (or, more informally, “Lampshading”) is the writers’ trick of dealing with any element of the story that seems too dubious to take at face value, whether a very implausible plot development or a particularly blatant use of a trope, by calling attention to it and simply moving on.”
He’s like Candid but doesn’t make you want to gauge your eyes out just to avoid reading the book, but it’s due in you philosophy class and you can’t afford to fail.
What’s the issue with reading Candid?
It’s not a long book but it is for me very frustrating to read.
It’s about an optimist who keeps dismissing the shitty things happening to/around because it’ll all work out.
I just did not enjoy reading it at all.
I know the book as I’m from the same country, so I wondered if there was some specific issue from the English side. It’s a satire of Leibniz philosophy and religion, so I think it’s its purpose to make you frustrated with the character.
It did a great job making me want to smack him
It’s just not my kind of book, I don’t enjoy that type of thing.
Yeah, I don’t think he’s portrayed as a loser, just as dumb. You don’t need to be smart to be successful in this world.
Uhhhh… Homer has three kids, surely?
Why can’t I have no kids and three money??
According to the available tax information he has nine kids, one of which is a Vietnam veteran.
C’mon, Marge, the dog doesn’t count as a kid.
Wait, 2 kids? Which one died?
Three! We have THREE kids Homer.
Three noisy kids. Fish heads, fish heads.
Dohhh, I have three kids and no money. Why can’t I have no kids and three money?!
Marge had a seventh trimester abortion this season.
To be fair, Maggie has been a baby for years. There was probably something wrong
Years? DECADES.
Decades are made of years
One’s doing time for shooting someone.
He was acquitted. Turns out the guy was just buried under a bunch of old newspapers. Luckily he was able to free himself using a vacuum cleaner and a baking soda rocket.
My dudes… He has three kids.
Poor sod wishes he had three moneys instead
The dog doesn’t count as a kid!
one is a baby so barely counts
OP lives above a bowling alley and bellow another bowling alley.
Why would you think that? I need an explanation for this joke.
It’s a reference to the episode with Frank Grimes. He’s a guy who does everything by the book and has little to show for it while Homer bumbles through life and gets everything. Frank is super envious of Homer. Excellent episode.
loser? no. stupid? yes.
Why do things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me?
And when I say stupid I mean stupid fresh
I see your Homer Simpson and raise you Al Bundy, who works at a shoe store and raised a family of 4 on that salary
He raised himself and his wife as well???
They lost a kid along the way but no one minded.
LOL good reference there.
Haha he was on a milk carton
I live in a single room above a bowling alley and below another bowling alley
Isn’t Homer meant to be an illustration of privilege? Like, he’s pretty useless, but still gets essentially everything he wants.
Nah, it’s supposed to be funny and relatable. Times changed, not the cartoon.
I watched an interview and they were talking about some song that gets sang where Bart can be anything he wants to be.
I think the gist was they listed this litany of jobs that he could have when he grew up and twenty years later none of them were really viable anymore, kind of emphasizing how long the show has been on.
Things have changed.
If he wasn’t, he is now. They made a musical episode about it called “Goodbye Middle Class” where they illustrate this with him.
Is that the point behind Frank Grimes aka Grimey?
“It doesn’t matter because I’m Homer Simpson”
Grimes is that you?
Yep, and that’s still true even when he’s made to face the consequences of his actions. We expect so very little of him that we let him get away with pretty much anything as long as he loves his family.
Hot damn if that’s not the picture of straight-white-male-between-18-and-50-years-old privilege.
You missed how he is dumb as fuck and how all he have is by luck . As another person commented there is an episode in which a real hard working man gets mad how homer has everything even tho he does’nt deserve it and i agree he almost causes nuclear melt down atleast twice a day, abuses his son, ignores his daughter etc.etc.
Frank Grimes: If you lived in any other country in the world, you’d have starved to death long ago.
Bart: He’s got you there, Dad.
Grimes: You’re a fraud, a total fraud. (To Marge and the kids) Was nice meeting you.
He is not, see the Frank Grimes episode
Or Grimey, as he liked to be called.
Yes, that was absolutely what he wanted to be called.
“I’m gonna touch these high voltage wires because I’M HOMER SIM-”…
WELL, I DON’T NEED SAFETY GLOVES, BECAUSE I’M HOMER SIMP–
Good ol’ Grimey.
[hnngk] change the channel Marge!
I’m fifty one years old and just kinda wanna break down what I’ve seen in my life:
My grandparents generation: Was able to buy housing, get healthcare, receive retirement. Note: They lived through the great depression, and categorically never spent any money that wasn’t necessary, even when they had several boatloads of it.
My parents generation: Housing was achievable but not given (I remember a whole lot of single wides, apartments, and duplexes among the adults of my childhood). Healthcare was affordable. Retirement was promised but not delivered.
My generation: Housing was achievable if you moved to the sticks and loved you some Jesus at the local Baptist Church, but not in the cities. We got a taste of healthcare twenty five years ago, but then yeah no. Retirement? Hahahahaha! We got 401(k)s forced in us, and they never materialized into dick. Many flatout vaporized when our marriages fizzled out.
My kid’s generation. Seriously, just die in the street. You’ll get absolute fuck all nothing, and you’ll like it as the older generations blame you for our fuckups.
My great contribution is that I’ll be able to leave my house free and clear of mortgage to my spawn when I check out. She can live in it, sell it, rent it, burn it to the ground. Whatever she wants, but damnit, I’m giving her the opportunity to do it, which most of her peers will never have.
What if in the future her family’s possession of a house is used as justification for judging her “capitalist scum” and she gets sent to the gulags for it?
Just kidding. Not that that can’t happen, but you shouldn’t plan for that.
It’s good that you’re doing the work necessary to give your daughter some security and stability.
Sounds like you’re a good father, sir
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
He’s portrayed as a loser due to being self-unaware and generally clueless.
