[BTM]

Again, I'd really like to see these "our future generations are doomed to be more broke and less apt to do anything about it" stats. If the first 200+ years of this country's existence are any indicator I'd bet on the opposite outcome. The three metrics I continue to refer to are not "selective economic stats." They are the 3 primary quality of life indicators. Considering the OP was a commentary on how (the quality) of life was better in 1957, I'd say these are the most relevant things to look at when objectively assessing the statement "life was better 50 years ago than it is now"

According to the US Census, per capita income in 1959 was $13,638 with a base year of 2009. Per capita income in 2009 was $33,070.

Life expectancy for a white male born in 1959 is about 67 years, for a white male born in 2009 is about 75 years.

Infant mortality rate in 1960 was 26 per 1000 live births is now 6.7 per 1000 live births.

Again, for the billionth time, THESE ARE ACADEMICALLY ACCEPTED TO BE THE 3 MOST INDICATIVE METRICS OF A NATION'S QUALITY OF LIFE!

For those who maintain that things used to be better because "everyone's a pussy now and no one can fight" then I welcome you to also admit that on average you prefer LESS money, a SHORTER life, and a HIGHER probability your baby will die.

[ragingclue]

Yes one of the issues is that we use the wrong indicators to gauge "quality of life", if it can even be gauged or measured....

I know what life was like when I grew up.

I look at my kids and see the shit they have to deal with and what life is going to be like for them.

So you sit there and read your books, and think you know more about what life was like "back then" vs "now". This is exactly the kind of arrogant shit I'm talking about. Get your head out of your ass already.

[BTM]

Yes, I'm gonna go by your seat of the pants take on your life vs. your kids' lives (which clairvoyantly you can determine the outcome of) over determinants and statistics developed and adapted for this specific purpose of "gaging or measuring" quality of life. These metrics come from researching and compiling real life date and extracting meaningful conclusions from them. They didn't magically appear in books, out of thin air, they are representative (by design) to provide insight into the quality of life of a specific year or era, and to make comparisons between years/eras easier to make with more accuracy. They aren't perfect, but they are a hell of a lot more better than a bunch of nostalgic childhood memories. If you truly don't believe so, well, I don't think they make anything for stubborn ignorance.

I'm not saying life is less complicated or simpler now or that people weren't happy 50 years ago. I'm saying on average, life for everyone has dramatically improved. I have data to back me up.

My head isn't in my ass. I've been formally educated on this very topic, I take it you haven't, just like many people on this forum, hence why I am making the effort to share it. People with an open mind to ideas more objective than "I don't like it now" may appreciate this. If you consider that arrogance, I consider you an idiot.

[ghosthi32]

Originally Posted by BTM

Yes, I'm gonna go by your seat of the pants take on your life vs. your kids' lives (which clairvoyantly you can determine the outcome of) over determinants and statistics developed and adapted for this specific purpose of "gaging or measuring" quality of life. These metrics come from researching and compiling real life date and extracting meaningful conclusions from them. They didn't magically appear in books, out of thin air, they are representative (by design) to provide insight into the quality of life of a specific year or era, and to make comparisons between years/eras easier to make with more accuracy. They aren't perfect, but they are a hell of a lot more better than a bunch of nostalgic childhood memories. If you truly don't believe so, well, I don't think they make anything for stubborn ignorance.

I'm not saying life is less complicated or simpler now or that people weren't happy 50 years ago. I'm saying on average, life for everyone has dramatically improved. I have data to back me up.

My head isn't in my ass. I've been formally educated on this very topic, I take it you haven't, just like many people on this forum, hence why I am making the effort to share it. People with an open mind to ideas more objective than "I don't like it now" may appreciate this. If you consider that arrogance, I consider you an idiot.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by BTM

Yes, I'm gonna go by your seat of the pants take on your life vs. your kids' lives (which clairvoyantly you can determine the outcome of) over determinants and statistics developed and adapted for this specific purpose of "gaging or measuring" quality of life. These metrics come from researching and compiling real life date and extracting meaningful conclusions from them. They didn't magically appear in books, out of thin air, they are representative (by design) to provide insight into the quality of life of a specific year or era, and to make comparisons between years/eras easier to make with more accuracy. They aren't perfect, but they are a hell of a lot more better than a bunch of nostalgic childhood memories. If you truly don't believe so, well, I don't think they make anything for stubborn ignorance.

I'm not saying life is less complicated or simpler now or that people weren't happy 50 years ago. I'm saying on average, life for everyone has dramatically improved. I have data to back me up.

My head isn't in my ass. I've been formally educated on this very topic, I take it you haven't, just like many people on this forum, hence why I am making the effort to share it. People with an open mind to ideas more objective than "I don't like it now" may appreciate this. If you consider that arrogance, I consider you an idiot.

Ok since you learned it from your classroom with data provided by self-proclaimed experts, I guess you obviously know exactly what's going on in the world.

Good luck in life. LOL.

[BTM]

I'll be just fine, thanks.

[immiketoo]

Originally Posted by BTM

More so than the ignorance and "back in my day" propagandists who spew these over-exaggerated fabrications shit as "evidence" that everything was better before? Every statistical metric of progress (life expectancy, per capita income, infant mortality rate) indicates vast improvements in American life over the last 50 years. But yea, I'd rather bring my gun to school.

These are exaggerated as a form of humor and to illustrate how ridiculous the world has become. You need to relax and realize that the severe overreaction to EVERYTHING in this country is why shit like this happens. People blaming restaurants because they're fat as opposed to not stuffing their faces with supersized everything, 5th grade kids being expelled for bringing the smallest Swiss Army knife available to school because it was a birthday gift, or some a-hole trying to scam Toyota out of a new car or money because he's now traumatized by his speeding car, even though he drives that fast every day on the way to work. Things like this are the death of common sense, and they're funny because they are so sad. Sadder still, is that there are people like you who seem to believe all this tripe. Enjoy your class action lawsuit for people too stupid to realize it's their own fault for spilling hot liquid on their laps.

[BTM]

I do realize that, and my initial post was simply I thought it was stupid. I acknowledged that they're exaggerated fabrications which to me reeked of stupidity. Next thing you know you get a bunch of people chiming in that "yea things were better back then" and I decided to introduce a more objective way of approaching the subject. Low and behold, every defends their own opinion, people can see how their own kids lives are gonna turn out, and the only one that can provide any concrete evidence of anything is me. It's there, it's black and white, you can choose not to believe it, but you'd be wrong.

[immiketoo]

Originally Posted by BTM

I do realize that, and my initial post was simply I thought it was stupid. I acknowledged that they're exaggerated fabrications which to me reeked of stupidity. Next thing you know you get a bunch of people chiming in that "yea things were better back then" and I decided to introduce a more objective way of approaching the subject. Low and behold, every defends their own opinion, people can see how their own kids lives are gonna turn out, and the only one that can provide any concrete evidence of anything is me. It's there, it's black and white, you can choose not to believe it, but you'd be wrong.

Let me give you a little perspective: Your statistics are clearly the commonly accpted way to judge quality of life, from a certain perspective. Not everyone shares your perspective. You are clearly articulate, based upon your writing style, but you are young, and young people lack perspective, often referred to as wisdom. Would you rather live a long, comfortable life that is bland and boring?

Some would argue that it is far more desireable to live life with less restriction and more freedom that society currently allows. The first settlers of this country knew that by leaving the "comfort" of their homeland they would endure hardship, suffering and possibly death, yet they chose that over a life of oppression and fear. So who has better quality of life? The oppressed or those who choose/yearn for something other than what they are statistically expected to desire.

So, while I thought your graph was humorous, you haven't a clue about what quality of life means to people outside your own limited life experience. When I grew up, kids learned to deal with interpersonal conflict on the playground, not in the courtroom. When you didn't get picked for kickball, you learned to get better, not complain to the teacher that its not fair. There were winners AND losers, and only the winners got the trophies. Losers got better or learned that maybe sports weren't for them. Now everyone in sports gets a trophy, just for participating.

Perspective is the difference here, and you can't analize that statistically, no matter how commonly accepted you believe it is. Sorry.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Let me give you a little perspective: Your statistics are clearly the commonly accpted way to judge quality of life, from a certain perspective. Not everyone shares your perspective. You are clearly articulate, based upon your writing style, but you are young, and young people lack perspective, often referred to as wisdom. Would you rather live a long, comfortable life that is bland and boring?

Some would argue that it is far more desireable to live life with less restriction and more freedom that society currently allows. The first settlers of this country knew that by leaving the "comfort" of their homeland they would endure hardship, suffering and possibly death, yet they chose that over a life of oppression and fear. So who has better quality of life? The oppressed or those who choose/yearn for something other than what they are statistically expected to desire.

So, while I thought your graph was humorous, you haven't a clue about what quality of life means to people outside your own limited life experience. When I grew up, kids learned to deal with interpersonal conflict on the playground, not in the courtroom. When you didn't get picked for kickball, you learned to get better, not complain to the teacher that its not fair. There were winners AND losers, and only the winners got the trophies. Losers got better or learned that maybe sports weren't for them. Now everyone in sports gets a trophy, just for participating.

Perspective is the difference here, and you can't analize that statistically, no matter how commonly accepted you believe it is. Sorry.

Thank you. I'm obviously too dumb and undereducated to put it so eloquently and articulate my point so precisely.

Your point about common sense is spot-on. I guess the world would be fine as long as we keep those three particular statistics up, even if we do end up with an Idiocracy-like society.

[BTM]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

So, while I thought your graph was humorous, you haven't a clue about what quality of life means to people outside your own limited life experience. When I grew up, kids learned to deal with interpersonal conflict on the playground, not in the courtroom. When you didn't get picked for kickball, you learned to get better, not complain to the teacher that its not fair. There were winners AND losers, and only the winners got the trophies. Losers got better or learned that maybe sports weren't for them. Now everyone in sports gets a trophy, just for participating.

I don't disagree with you here. Maybe I'm just a little more optimistic about things than others, but my childhood did not involve fights being resolved in courtrooms, teachers mandating fairness over picking teams, etc. Play sports and lose, and the parents want to applaud their kid's effort and buy them trophies, who are you to tell them not to?

I see incidents with very low statistical probabilities get blown out proportion such as vicious beatings caught on camera phone, child abductions, guns/school shootings by the media, and it's the parents reactions to this that may be "diminishing their kids quality of life" or "oversheltering them" or however you want to put it.

[BTM]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

Your point about common sense is spot-on. I guess the world would be fine as long as we keep those three particular statistics up, even if we do end up with an Idiocracy-like society.

When did I ever imply this? All I did is address blanket statements of "life was better back then" with similarly encompassing statistics indicating otherwise

[Dan in PA]

It's kind of obvious who experienced the 1950s, 60s, 70s or early 80s in this thread and who learned about them in history class

[immiketoo]

Originally Posted by BTM

I don't disagree with you here. Maybe I'm just a little more optimistic about things than others, but my childhood did not involve fights being resolved in courtrooms, teachers mandating fairness over picking teams, etc. Play sports and lose, and the parents want to applaud their kid's effort and buy them trophies, who are you to tell them not to?

I see incidents with very low statistical probabilities get blown out proportion such as vicious beatings caught on camera phone, child abductions, guns/school shootings by the media, and it's the parents reactions to this that is "diminishing their kids quality of life" or "oversheltering them" or however you want to put it.

BTM, I'm not telling anyone to do or not do anything. I only use it as an example to illustrate the differences in how things have changed generationally, and how those changes affect perceived quality of life. Personally, I think its irresponsible to encourage mediocrity and false sense of achievement.

In your second paragraph, you actually prove Radix's point perfectly. It's exactly because parents are over reacting out of fear that HAS changed quality of life, and it is statistically proven that children's exposure to graphic depictions of violence i.e. movies, video games and mainstream media have increased fear levels among generations. These children grow up and have their own kids and instill their own fears in them, and so the cycle repeats. (Lt Col. David Grossman is an excellent resource should you be interested in educating yourself on this topic).

"Back in the day" the media coverage of these events was restricted by technology and there was not the intense sense of urgency regarding the reporting of ghastly stories. It is the media's propensity to exaggerate the low frequency events that never used to happen.

Kids were not exposed to the levels of violence they are now, and as a result, little Suzie did not go to bed at night worring about Al Queda blowing up mommie's office building.

So, it's a huge self perpetuating problem that is exacerbated by the three big quality of life issues you bring up. Not everyone is motivated by money, longer life and infant mortality rates. Sure, they affect everyone to some extent, but they are far from being the three most important attributes. More likely, they are just the three easiest to measure.

[immiketoo]

Originally Posted by Dan in PA

It's kind of obvious who experienced the 1950s, 60s, 70s or early 80s in this thread and who learned about them in history class

[Dan in PA]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Sure, they affect everyone to some extent, but they are far from being the three most important attributes. More likely, they are just the three easiest to measure.

This.

[BTM]

Point taken, I never meant to delve into how media has changed society or even get this far into a discussion about this but I see your point, you see mine, and we have different interpretations of that. I stand by my original point that circulating emails with such obvious agendas is stupid, maybe some see it as comedy, but in the industry I work I deal with people who actually swear by this kind of stuff.

Growing up now is certainly much different than it used to be, you see this as negative, I don't necessarily see it as positive nor negative, but I see a net positive when considering quality of life metrics.

Originally Posted by immiketoo

So, it's a huge self perpetuating problem that is exacerbated by the three big quality of life issues you bring up. Not everyone is motivated by money, longer life and infant mortality rates. Sure, they affect everyone to some extent, but they are far from being the three most important attributes. More likely, they are just the three easiest to measure.

If I may comment on this. It is true that not everyone is motivated by money, longer life, and infant mortality rates. You are right, they are pretty easy to measure accurately, and this is quite important when using inferential statistics. Much easier to measure than someone's happiness. They are also vital to measure quality of life. I think we can all agree that some very basic components to having a high quality of life would include adequate food & water, clothes, shelter, health and access to healthcare.

The three metrics I've presented are extremely accurate and indicating the state of a country's supply of food, water, clothes shelter, and healthcare. Per capita income is far and away the most critical metric, but since it often does not tell the whole story especially with health, life expectancy and infant mortality rates have been included to better predict health. As you may have guessed, when per capita income and life expectancy are up and infant mortality is down, you can put the money in the bank betting whether or not you are looking at a developed country with a high quality of life. So while not everyone goes around consciously incorporating these statistics into their decision making process, you can surely see that a person with more money will have better access to food, water, clothes, shelter, and healthcare, and why these three metrics were chosen as the pillars for estimating a particular group's quality of life.

My point is that when trending these 3 metrics for the US, we are now as a country better able to afford these basic life components than 20 or 50 years ago.

[immiketoo]

^^^ Your argument is circular, and therefore limited. None of your statistics have anything to do with the dichotomy presented in the OP's admittedly anecdotal post. Demographics were not addressed at all and therefore, I conclude that you have no other argument to make to support your position other than, perhaps, your textbook. Life and the quality thereof cannot be explained in an undergrad classroom lecture (Although it can certainly be observed in the student body).

Also, I hope the people in your industry aren't making decisions for anyone other than themselves if they can't see the humor in a tongue-in-cheek email.

[BTM]

How do they have nothing to do with the original post, which implies that life was better in 1957 than in 2007. Looking at quality of life indicators, the opposite is true. I never claimed to be able to explain life, no one can. All I claimed that there is much hard evidence indicating that quality of life has actually improved, contrary to everyone posting "life was so much better before" etc. For you personally, this may be the case. Sorry. For the entire country, in terms of being able to afford basic necessities essential to having a high quality of life, we are better off today than we were 50 years ago. If you disagree with this, please show me something objective that disproves me.

And they see the humor in it, but also use it to reaffirm underlying sentiments, same way people in this thread have been doing

[ghosthi32]

this is still going on?
op look what you started lol

[Alexander]

It's a little funny.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by BTM

You really think the reason schools have a zero tolerance violence policy is because administrators got their asses kicked as kids? And not because parents don't want their kids getting in fights at learning institutions? That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard

Violence has always existed, it only "became a problem" after zero tolerance policies were put in place because now there was no tolerance for something that previously dealt with otherwise

Actually I do, and and I have two kids and told them the same thing my dad told me, never start a fight, but protect yourself at any cost. I also know a number of parents who feel the exact same way and do not see any problem with kids getting in a fight. I only know a few who get all upset about kids arguing, disagreeing and even fighting and these are the people who make all the noise about school violence and such.

I will also tell you my son is a boy scout, almost a Eagle scout, and in his troop we have one kids who because his mom does not approved of boys being boy and the horse play and such and from time to time a kid gets hurt or a they call each other names, has made a big stink and the troop had to change polices and crack down on all the boys. So we caved to one person since everyone fears this women will cause problems and will sue.

So yes it is only a few who are the wimp asses who are afraid their kids will get hurt are the cause of these issue. Man up teach your kid to be a man and stop being sensitive and realize kid will be kids and kids are mean to one another, and one thing I learn from kids they speak the truth and tell it as it is and this is what people do not like.

To drive this point home, this same kid at scouts was on a hike with the troop, which was a pretty tough hike. He had problems, but so did a few others, he end up falling a number to times to the point he had bruised and was bleeding. He freaked out on us and he was totally upset, we asked him what was wrong and he said his mom was going to be upset with him, at first we thought because his cloths were muddy and such so we said do not worry the cloths will come clean and he turned around and said she is going to be upset because he got hurt and had bruises all over him. What makes this situation worse is this kids dad was a Marine.

This is the sociaty we now live in where these type of people are dictating on the rest of is how we should pamper their kids

Originally Posted by BTM

Were both kids charged? Or did your son just finally snap and beat someone up? If that's the case he should be charged with aggravated assault. You mentioned people don't know how to deal with conflict, is this your idea of properly dealing with a personal conflict?

My son was not involved, it was a neighbor kid and yes they were both charged, and no this is not the way to handle it, the school should not have involved at all, the only reason the kid snap is because he has been told for years you are not allow to hit anyone otherwise you will be expelled and arrested and the school re-enforces this message all the time. So for year the kids just held it all in until they can not take anymore. This exact what happen to this kid and the best part is the school forced him to go to a different school since he is the one who threw the first punch.

Trust me, when you have kids you will understand, either you tell you kid not stand up for themselves and let them get abused and picked on and if you do tell them to stand up for themselves you worry about getting the call from the police saying your kid was arrested for getting in a fight. Those are your two choose today.