• OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    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

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      Frank Grimes pointed out the insanity/luck of his living situation and your last part is true today “bumbling oaf” is still an archetype

      • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • massive_bereavement@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          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 Dry

          If cities had money, they could build public housing or promote affordable options.

        • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

          • exocrinous@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            The content of your message is right, but you’re using the wrong terms. You’re referring to middle class suburbanites as rich.

        • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          The two are related. Oil money supports both the suburban Ponzi scheme and also Reaganite deregulation.

    • bobburger@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      To be fair a nuclear operator can typically afford to support a family of 5 even today.

      • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Many style manuals allow referring to decades with apostrophes before the s, and no apostrophes before the abbreviated year

            • itsnotits@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.

              • psud@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                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

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    He’s not? There’s literally an episode about how Homer is so lucky in life that he drives a man insane.

        • Obi@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.”

  • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

  • MoonMelon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    The show was also conceived with Bart as the main character, with the world being from Bart’s perspective. As a kid Bart’s age of course your dad is dumb. Homer is the irl name of Matt Groenig’s dad.

    As the show progressed the writers ended up latching onto Homer more and he gradually became the core of the show. Also the characters “Flanderized” (literally!) more and more as time went on and he became more ridiculous. The Frank Grimes episode is pretty genius for capturing all this in a funny way.

  • morphballganon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    There are jobs that provide that kind of compensation (granted, a very small % of total jobs are like that), and it’s actually very realistic for an absolute moron to have one of them.

    Have you never spoken to someone who makes much more money than you and thought, “wow, what an idiot” in your life?

  • Agent641@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    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

  • Minecraft.gov/Obama@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Because he’s a little overweight, and in 1989, that was reason enough to laugh at someone.

    Plus, all of those were commonplace thirty years ago.

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Hedonism and Wealth should not be your metric for evaluating people, anon.

    Homer sleeps at his job, is a habitual drinker, and is willfully ignorant.

  • batman without ears@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • Seraph@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.