It’s only a matter of time before the cat gets swapped out for a plant.
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
641 points (96.8% liked)
Political Memes
5402 readers
2207 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Damn Gen Beta and their plants. They could afford a house if they didn't have 3 whole plants to take care of!
human children → pets → plants → cut flowers → virtual pets do a comeback → adult imaginary friends
-> xbox live with the mic turned off
SMH you think we going to be able to afford plants in the future! It's going to be the parents as pets:*(..
We're gonna bring back virtual pets because real pets are too expensive
EA will fix that. With microtransactions your digital pets can be equally expensive! (If not moreso!)
load more comments
(1 replies)
What happened to the 2000s?
Al'so, we're apo'strophe's on 'sale or 'something?
Damn, and we all agreed to never forget
The 1990s: Correct
The '90s: Also correct as you're abbreviating the above.
The 90's: Incorrect but I understand the mix-up.
The 1990's: Totally wrong in every way
what if we are using a possessive form instead of plural?
Then you write The 90s' like you would with other words ending in S. "The 90's" would be like writing "The new's"
It's referring to the years between 1990 and 1999 so the 90s is already plural.
Unless you're referring specifically to something belonging to the year 1990? Can't think of any sentence where that would occur.
load more comments
(7 replies)
The 2000s would be hard to sum up in a single photo without breaking the narrative. The family would be well off, getting fat and buying a McMansion. They would likely be just as culpable for the issues affecting those later decades.
2000 - 2008: economic boom combined with lots of deregulation on Wall Street led to the creation of almost a trillion in off the books derivative investments which were repackaged and sold off so much that they became toxic despite looking fine on paper, and made you money. Keeping the whole thing going led to something of an 8% increase in subprime lending.
Combine that with lots of folks from the 90s rampantly speculating on house sales, creating a housing bubble as they try to get rich by raising prices and flipping houses. Mix in even more deregulation and you get a Great Recession setting back a generation, in 2008. All while the folks who pushed the deregulation turn around and blame it on a president who wasn’t even inaugurated until 2009.
Thanks, Obama.
The 90's were 20 years ago, we don't talk about the 2000's
What are you abbreviating with that apostrophe?
The (19)'90s or just The 90s.
load more comments
(3 replies)
They got 9/11'd
Should be cookie cutter condos.
The American dream is to be a middle man who takes a cut while adding nothing, to have a captive consumer (sometimes literally), or to be to big to fail or regulate.
2000’s, like Gen X, completely ignored.
Nothing happened in the 2000s. That decade was "woo it's the future!" Then "oh no 9/11!" Then BAM! 2010!
And now we are permanently in 2019
Well, it was kind of turbulent? Artificially inflated so people thought they got homes, then they suddenly didn't.
Its pulling misleading outliers from your data set. In meme form.
Average new home in 1960: 1300 sq/ft. (without garage)
Average new home in 2020: 2600 sq/ft (+ 2-3 car garage)
Average household size in 1960: 3.4
Average household size: 2.5
Number of households with 2 or more vehicles in 1960: 22%
Number of house holds with 2 or more vehicles in 2020: 59%
Ya'll, I don't know how else to explain this - the reason home ownership and cost of living is expensive is very straightforward. We don't build or accept smaller homes, we don't build enough of them, and we spend far more on vehicles.
Edit: if you want affordable housing, advocate (aka vote, canvas, donate) for candidates in your local government that support -
- Zoning and regulations that benefits smaller home sizes.
- Zoning that permits denser and missing middle development (for less need for vehicles)
- Zoning that permits mixed use development.
- Land Value Tax
- Reduced or eliminated parking minimums
- Bike infrastructure.
Okay so I'm with you on walkable cities being good, but everything else you said is offensively fucking wrong.
Care to elaborate on what you felt was offensively fucking wrong?
You agree with walkable cities but:
- Want large houses (needing more space, spreading things out)?
- Don't want denser zoning?? (How are ya gonna walk somewhere with everything spread out)
- Hate the idea of a corner shop. (Love driving just to get a few small food items)
- Dislike taxes (how will you pay for your infrastructure? There's a reason US cities are crumbling, they're too spread out, so land taxes don't cover the maintenance bills)
- Like carparks
- Hate bikes
load more comments
(1 replies)
Don't just say "it's fucking wrong" without explaining yourself. It kills debates and it just looks like you're salty and took the comment personally
Take some time and continue the conversation
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
This is a gross oversimplification and in part just illogical. Yes, new small homes would help everyone out. But compare house prices to purchasing power then vs. now. It’s absolutely incomparable to 1960. That’s not because of square footage. And car ownership as an input here makes no sense. The costs of a downpayment and mortgage are simply out of reach for many people irrespective of car count. I say all this as a homeowner.
Purchasing power is a function of how much you spend on rent, which is a function of housing supply relative to demand, which is a function of the zoning laws comment-OP referred to.
purchasing power is a function of those zoning laws. When you disrupt the free market (like a zoning law that says you can’t put more than three units on an acre of land despite a hundred units being more profitable overall, just an example) people suffer and it gets worse over time. These effects build up.
Government meddling in the real estate market isn’t the only thing affecting that purchasing power, but it’s in the mix.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
The apartment in the 90s is possibly the most expensive place to live. Also, this skips the 00s.
1980s: Cocaine!
Pretty sure that's why 80's father is stoked.
Fantastic work, especially the hairdos of Woejack and Tradwife are spot-on. Best meme I've seen in many months.
I get the point but not entirely accurate. The 90s and 00s were the golden age of McMansions.
Did their children die and they just didn’t age? Did they breed for food? That sounds pretty sustainable. Hmmm. Consuming children for eternal life and being green at the same time!
view more: next ›