Submitted by mooscaretaker t3_ydzdtb in RhodeIsland
Accurate-Historian-7 t1_itv1ji8 wrote
It’s because we are tired of a bunch of old ass men and women running the country.
They don’t understand or even have a clue as to how hard things are today.
The generation running the country went to college and was guaranteed a job. Housing was much more affordable. Jobs paid a livable wage based on the economics of the time.
Not the case anymore and the politicians, both democrats and republicans, are very disillusioned with these facts.
This is why the youth doesn’t care. Millennials are the first generation who will have less wealth than their parents. This is well documented.
Not to mention Gen Z who only cares about being TikTok famous.
mooscaretaker OP t1_itvd1sz wrote
This is one of my main complaints, the people running this country (and this state) are generationally much older then the majority of their constituents. I am a firm believe in term limits although there are arguments for and against. But when politicians make a career out of political life, they don't understand what people are going through. Older people esp are dismissive of the modern concerns and really have no idea the younger people are up against. If the young don't vote, the old will always vote for self preservation.
PM_ME_YOUR_LUKEWARM t1_itwh6e2 wrote
It's also hard to even get on a ballot.
I tried running for Cranston council in July and couldn't get enough signatures to be nominated.
Most folks wouldn't open the door for me because they thought I was selling solar panels.
Young or old; it's tough to break into their club.
I'm going to try again in 2024, this time I'll take advantage of the voter demographics spreadsheets they give out.
mooscaretaker OP t1_itxuim7 wrote
Try again. In the meantime follow the data at RI Secretary of States website. Talk to your local town clerk in charge of voting. https://vote.sos.ri.gov/ You need to find out what the issues are locally and attend local meetings. It's so important
PM_ME_YOUR_LUKEWARM t1_ityc82q wrote
I read the council minutes occasionally.
But I'll try to attend physically.
Accurate-Historian-7 t1_itvg1q9 wrote
Term limits are definitely something that need to be considered in this country. Also a cap on max age for president!
misterspokes t1_itvi8he wrote
Ideally we uncap the house, apply an alternative popular vote compact, and use mixed member districts to start. We no longer need to consider the size of the building and it's offices, Congress ran just fine virtually under COVID (The House, the Senate shut down because Mitch McConnell thought that it was unnecessary)
misterspokes t1_itvhonl wrote
Term Limits tend to be well-meaning but bad for government as a whole as you end up with an entire support structure of staffers and such that constantly know more about the inner workings of the policy levers than the cycling elected officials, forming a shadow government.
Kelruss t1_itvxltb wrote
So, I agree with the first part of your statement (term limits are bad), but your rationale is weak.
First, Congress has defunded its own staff capacity since the Gingrich era, so the ability of Congressional staffers to become a "shadow government" is limited.
Second, you actually want a set of staffers with deep expertise in what they do. Like, that's good for government; experienced people who know how to move bills through committee can greatly enhance a young congressperson's ability to pass legislation. Congress' own decision to weaken this is a massive problem, and it's part of why more and more power has concentrated in the hands of party leadership in Congress, because they have the best staff.
Third, you do not have to worry about a shadow government. The US has two branches full capable of usurping Congressional power all on their own; the President and the Supreme Court. And that's part of what's actually occurred. As Congress gets weaker and less capable of making decisions, more and more policymaking is made by the President (via executive order) or the Court (via decisions). This is a really bad outcome. The Constitution only provides for one deliberative, decision-making body: the United States Congress.
Term limits stand to worsen all the current effects, as they generally have in states that have adopted them. The fear here should not be that some anonymous staffers are running the government from within Congress, it's that the two least-representative and least-transparent branches of government will be setting policy.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_itwzntj wrote
>Congress has defunded its own staff capacity since the Gingrich era, so the ability of Congressional staffers to become a "shadow government" is limited.
More than staffs of congress, I'd worry that legislation is basically going to be dictated by industry interests.
Kelruss t1_itx2w6d wrote
This is, in fact, something that occurs more frequently in state legislatures that have enacted term limits. With less experienced legislators, they became more reliant on lobbyists of all types to actually draft legislation, which leads to a lot more corporate legislation.
do_not_engage t1_itwkeik wrote
I don't see how that's a problem? The politicians job is to use the knowledge of that staff to accomplish their stated goals. The staff knowing more than the politician isn't... bad. Unless the goal is just to make sure the politician in question is always the smartest person in the room by removing all the other smart people...
Edit: Oh i see
> forming a shadow government
That's not what a shadow government is, because if the elected official feels that way, they can always fire their staff members. Shadow government can't just be fired by an elected official. They are the people runing agencies - without term limits OR having been elected.
Term limits on un-elected agency positions would ALSO stop shadow government as well as solve the generation gap problem.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_itvo67m wrote
>Term Limits tend to be well-meaning but bad for government as a whole as you end up with an entire support structure of staffers and such that constantly know more about the inner workings of the policy levers than the cycling elected officials, forming a shadow government.
There are not enough upvotes in the world for how dead accurate this is. Every time I see a politician/pundit/person I like and respect be on board with term limits, a part of my soul dies. It's the ultimate "nice idea unless you think about about it" idea that solves nothing and makes existing problems even worse.
misterspokes t1_itvqp38 wrote
It "works" in the Executive because the entire job is managing a legacy bureaucracy and most of the people who get into the position have met and interacted with most of the ones that can't easily be replaced.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_itvw791 wrote
I'd almost argue that it's not even great in the executive branch. It was an overcorrection from a wildly popular president that couldn't be unseated until he died in office and a wildly unpopular vice president took over.
To me, it's just inherently undemocratic to automatically disqualify a choice that might be the most popular one. I could see the logic a little better for a governor but for the U.S. Presidency, most people would not even want to keep going after 2 full terms. Maybe if you had the double-whammy of a world war and a great depression again, I could see someone not wanting to abandon ship in crisis, but that job would burn most people out.
If you look at the 2 term presidents after FDR, none of them even would've tried to go for a 3rd term if the option was there. It's a self correcting problem federally because that job has stress factors none of us can imagine.
misterspokes t1_itvws61 wrote
Indeed, but it's still acceptable in the position. Expanding the house and instituting rotating benches in the Federal Court system would go a long way in fixing the things we claim we want term limits for.
mykittyforprez t1_itw62ba wrote
Here's the thing - you are not going to fix it by not voting.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_itvfukf wrote
I get the gripe but I don't think you can dismiss the old politicians or past results of elections without pointing out the culpability of young people in perpetuating that by disengaging or choosing to not participate. That's part of why those old people who are so disconnected keep getting elected and staying in office.
do_not_engage t1_itwjx2l wrote
...you're blaming people who couldn't vote 20 years ago for politicians that have been in power for 20 years?
...you're blaming this generation of young people for the young people of the 90s?
Proof-Variation7005 t1_itwu2si wrote
You're misreading me. "Young people" means people who are young at a given time. This isn't about 1 specific generation, much less the current one.
It's every generation and nothing's really going to change until that 18-24 voting bloc shows up and forces it to change going forward. Each successive one is a little screwed by the previous one.
If that 18-24 year old group started showing up at the 75% rate that senior citizens showed up at, it'd take exactly 1 election cycle to break that trend.
JimmyHavok t1_itwr8kc wrote
I grew up in the '70s, and we were not guaranteed a job at all. I can remember 2000 people lining up to apply for 150 jobs. I was stunned in the '90s when I applied for three jobs and got a callback from all of them, I had never had to choose between jobs before.
However, as a general rule, people in politics are from the class who did not have to struggle for employment. But some of them understand what that means, and make an effort to prevent it . Vote for them.
AlabasterRadio t1_ityqju9 wrote
>Not to mention Gen Z who only cares about being TikTok famous.
Don't fall for this trap. Every generation looks down on the next one as being the worst and it's part of the issue. The blame fell from Gen X to us Millenials and now we're helping shift it to Gen Z. Each generation has it's knuckleheads, don't define them all by it
bigdaddybryusa2 t1_itz18ou wrote
This country will be so much better off when the boomers start losing their grip on it
Accurate-Historian-7 t1_itz6o1l wrote
That needs to be a bumper sticker!
unidumper t1_itvzk20 wrote
my company (globally recognized) pays about 19 hour great benefits to start with nothing more than HS diploma and you reach pay max in 4 years, about 26 hour. the young kids (millennials) come in ,if they show up, if they show up on time, and demand to be able to wear air pods and sit in a chair. they have no regard for quality work or any interest in bettering anything. totally self centered "theres no I in team" mentality. I actually fear for the future of some industries seeing this generations absolute lack of work ethic. nobody should owe their soul to the company store but you are not worth what you think you are.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_itx090s wrote
Millennials aren't "young kids". It's a generation that ranges from late 20s to early 40s.
unidumper t1_itx464m wrote
yes , sorry young to me. Im 50.
Accurate-Historian-7 t1_itw2jc2 wrote
That’s simply not true and you are grouping an entire generation based off a few bad eggs that you have had. Also top pay of 26$ an hour isn’t Jack shit in today’s economy. Basic house that needs 50k of work put into it cost 350k minimum. Not to mention the insane cost of used cars, groceries, insurance and everything else. Wake up to reality. We don’t live in the same world that you grew up in.
You were right about 2 things.
-
Proving my point that an entire generation of people still think we live in the 90s and are completely out of tune with the realities of todays world.
-
We don’t want to sell our souls to companies that have no problem dropping us at a moments notice, not giving an appropriate amount of time off, and refuse to pay a living wage.
unidumper t1_itwilnk wrote
are you kidding ? i made this pay and own 2 cars and a home bought 3 years ago with 0 down with all the trimmings. just because the majority of your generation thinks you deserve a CEO pay package with janitor credentials dont blame society or evil corporations. go open your own company and get real world insight. bitching that every unskilled job out there should pay enough to support a family of 4 isnt realistic. i live in todays world i know what it takes to make it and the generation you are worried about has alotta work to do.
do_not_engage t1_itwkwq3 wrote
> bitching that every unskilled job out there should pay enough to support a family of 4 isnt realistic
Uh, no, it's literally what minimum wage allowed from 1950-1980.
Minimum wage was mathematically created to be the amount where one person could support a wife and children.
it hasn't been that for the last... 25 years, tho.
> i made this pay
When, in 1999? Because $26 an hour in 1999 is... $46 an hour today.
You're ignoring basic inflation.
You made THE EQUIVALENT OF $46 an hour when you were young, and pay people THE EQUIVALENT OF $15 an hour now, and think it's the same?
Do some basic math and stop blaming us for wanting what our parents had.
Accurate-Historian-7 t1_itwn7yb wrote
Thank you for the back up. I don’t have the energy to prove to this asshole how wrong he is.
unidumper t1_itx5xfm wrote
lmao.. again i dont want anyone in poverty but you need to have something to bring to the table also. you people think a burger flipper in 1950 supported a family had cars and a home.times have always been tough, every generation thinks the previous one skated. good luck times are changing and you are the future.. choose wisely because us old timers wont be here to bail you out.
Accurate-Historian-7 t1_itx7zdf wrote
I don’t think a burger flipper is a career goal, unless of course you own some high end restaurant and that’s been your life’s dream. I think the issue is a lot of millennials have no hope because they see wages capped at a certain number and they see the cost of everything else around them going up (not your fault or mine. Just the norm). Me personally, I went to school, now work in the trades because I make way more doing skilled trade work than I ever could have with my degree. Times aren’t what they used to be. Houses aren’t 200k anymore. They are double that. A decent used car is 15k minimum. Millennials see everything around them changing accept the wages. I agree minimum wage jobs should not be peoples goal in life. The reality is most people need much more just to afford the basic necessities. 26$ an hour is decent pay, but you also said that’s were is caps out. That’s likely something you can’t change, we both know how business and overhead works. At the end of the day someone isn’t likely to give their all for a job that caps out in the 55k range.
[deleted] t1_itxepag wrote
[deleted]
Accurate-Historian-7 t1_itwoanf wrote
Haha you really are just digging yourself deeper and deeper.
CEO pay really?
Your “top pay” of 26$ an hour is not even 55k a year.
Thats assuming you pay holidays.
55k is not anywhere near enough money to afford everyday expenses in todays economy.
55k take out taxes, insurance and 401k assuming you offer that, that doesn’t even leave 40k leftover.
You need to wake up to reality. 20 years ago 55k would have been respectable, today that 55k should be 80k if not more. Oh and for the record, I do have my own company. You know why I have my own company, because I learned a long time ago that your generation doesn’t pay a livable wage. Your way off old timer!
unidumper t1_itx4zwd wrote
And you pay your associates a living wage ? every employee you have makes over 26 an hour ? Wish i was way off but every day I talk to these kids I see the whole country being lost if this is the new normal.
magentablue t1_itxefjs wrote
I’m one of the older millennials and this entire rant is so beyond BS. Every millennial I know has worked so much harder than their parents for so much less.
Imagine being mad at someone for wanting to sit in a chair….? At some point you all need to stop blaming us for everything.
Also $19/hour isn’t great. It’s barely enough to support yourself on.
do_not_engage t1_itwkt1g wrote
unidumper t1_itx5adl wrote
and the current crop isnt worth that so ???
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments