by evilgenius » Thu 29 Sep 2011, 19:21:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FairMaiden', 'G')iven the level of properity of during the boomer's time, you would think they would be retiring early...unless you conclude they are not finanically prudent. I do know a lot of my peers who had their post secondary education paid for in full by the their boomer parents, elaborate weddings and downpayments on houses.
+1
I do find the level of pampering that went on, especially following the college education to be ridiculous, and leading to unrealistic expectations or being spoiled. (I got a little help for college, and did a LOT of work, and lived like the POOR man I was, to avoid significant debt. This was around 1980, before tuition became totally ruinous). I would not have expected or accepted expensive weddings OR ANY other financial help after I graduated from college. From there it was MY responsibility.
To me, it's like house pets. I've seen a dog spoiled to where it would only eat GOOD steak, cooked!
When I would point out that, say, two to six days of being presented with a bowl of ordinary dog food (dry, for fresh each day if wet) -- that I was rather confident the dog would go back to eating dog food at some point -- I would just get whining that I was "mean".
The correlation between that and what I see with the left these days with expecting everyone to be "taken care of" at unrealistic levels (on the backs of the producers), regardless of their input/effort, is telling, IMO.
I was just reading a blog about the popularity of early sixties era television shows today (Mad Men, Playboy Bunnies, etc) and the person was saying that one of the things they noticed was the pampering and easy very low production life men had back in that sexist time. In light of that I think it is very funny that you posted this.