1016
'Millennials are not punk kids anymore' — Ocasio-Cortez sees a 'generational tidal wave' driven by anger over economic futures sidelined by boomers | Fortune (fortune.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
305 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Baby boomers comprised a larger share of voters in 2024, accounting for 32%, but they are trending lower after hitting a peak of 36% in 2016.

Ocasio-Cortez, a millennial herself, expects the younger generation will soon tip the scales in American politics.

“Millennials are not punk kids anymore. We’re grown adults with mortgages and kids,” she said. “And we—that generation is starting to be decisive at the polls. And there is anger at being ignored, sidelined, having our economic futures mortgaged by the generations that came before us on everything from the economy to climate. And we’re taking the reins.”

From global warming to debt crisis to lack of affordable health insurance (all intentional), Boomers have definitely overstayed their welcome.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 48 points 1 month ago* (21 children)

This is not old versus young, plenty of old heads want what the younger gen wants.

This is class warfare. The Epstein class has been attacking the rest of us for ages with impunity. The first strike came from Senator Joe McCarthy in the 1950s.

I appreciate what AOC does in most respects, but this is a miss for her. We can’t afford this divisive messaging and she needs to be told this.

Accountability to the people for ALL politicians.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    Except in a way it is old vs young. The old will need more and more care, and that ends up coming from the youth. The same youth that were promised a future that doesn't exist, and now have little desire to give giving what they cannot afford. Many countries are going to have to have a real reckoning with aging populations, and few have even started the conversation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    Young people would not mind providing that care if they were paid for it.

    If we soaked the rich to fund the welfare state there wouldn't be so much simmering anger.

    Not doctors and lawyers, the billionaires and decimillionaires. The epstein class.

    Tax wealth not work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (9 children)

    If we soaked the rich to fund the welfare state there wouldn’t be so much simmering anger.

    Not doctors and lawyers, the billionaires and decimillionaires. The epstein class.

    If you taxed 100% of the 0.01% wealthiest, took every drop and redistributed it, each person in the world would get $5k USD.

    When you get to that 1%, you are already talking about the doctors and lawyers and people you don't want to target, and compared to many parts of the world, you may already be in the 1 or top 5% of wealth. Should your money be taken as well, so those in Afica with nothing get something more?

    Maybe that would certainly change things for some, but wouldn't have the effect you want, and would also collapse the world economy and put all of us back in the stone age. Certainly I think when you hit a billion of net worth you get a nice little trophy and have 99% of it redistributed, but just 'taxing' wealth isn't going to do a damn thing about fixing societal issues that cost far far more than $5k a person.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (8 children)

    I live in the US. I'm assuming each nation deals with its superwealthy internally.

    Separately, I think the US should dismantle its empire, which would redistribute wealth to the rest of the world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (7 children)

    So because you are in the US, only the US deserves all of the wealth? That doesn't sound very fair when you think about it. Sorry Canada, sorry Mexico, you deserve nothing. Seems like all your idea would do is just make every person over 'X' wealth move to a different country, which has happened everytime high welath taxes have been implemented.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    To your first sentence, that's the opposite of what I said.

    I don't think wealth taxes should be limited to citizens. If billionaires own wealth here they can pay taxes here. If they don't like it they can sell their assets in the US.

    If billionaires want to move they can obviously do so, but they can keep paying the wealth tax or they can sell their assets in the US. If enough billionaires sell their assets then eventually non billionaires will be able to afford assets. That's a win for Non billionaires either way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    If billionaires own wealth here they can pay taxes here.

    Soooo property taxes? They already pay those.

    It's almost like you haven't really thought about the proposal or even if it's going to generate the revenue for the services you are demanding.

    Know what's a quicker path? End wars around the world, invest in local economies, and elect leaders that will do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Those are also good things and we should do them.

    Wealth tax isn't directly going to fund the welfare state. The purpose is to slow or reverse the concentration of wealth into ever fewer hands.

    If we fail to tax wealth, every other good government reform will only delay the inevitable slide into poverty. They might delay it for a generation or 2, because many nations have vast resources or have not reached high levels of inequality or both, but eventually, the rich will own everything if they are not stopped.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    That makes zero sense. Wealth taxes where implemented do just that. Fund the welfare state. Perhaps that's not the solution and you put better solutions in place to prevent accumulation of wealth. Seems better to incentivize investment rather than doing it through simple taxation regardless of what is being done with the money.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    That makes zero sense. Wealth taxes where implemented do just that. Fund the welfare state.

    I have been convinced by the arguments of the economist Gary Stevenson. If wealth inequality is allowed to grow as it has for the past 50 years the rich will inevitably own everything.

    If you have a better suggestion to prevent this future, by all means explain it. But investment reducing inequality is nonsense. Who are you borrowing from to make the investment? The wealthy.

    That's like suggesting I pay off my credit card with a different credit card. It's still debt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Ideally in my mind the peasants rise up, take control of the means of production and earnings from production are spread equally among the workers. That first part is really difficult to do, as most humans are going to look out for their own interests prior to the interests of their community.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    At least where I live there would need to be a generational project of encouraging unionization and worker owned coops.

    Labor is so rare and weak that most people either don't know anyone in a union or don't know that they know someone in a union.

    Worker owned Co ops are vanishingly rare. I wasn't able to find any operating in Texas Last time I checked. We don't have the infrastructure for workers to rise up and manage anything here, so we remain at the mercy of capital.

    But, expanding Unions and Co ops is worth doing for its own sake. Even if the revolution never happens, it still improves human welfare.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago* (6 children)

    We’re going to be old one day and need care. Society as a whole takes responsibility for this.

    The young need to support the old and in turn, we will be supported when the time comes.

    Socialist mentality is about benefit to all, including the elderly. The rich also have it in for the elderly. To them, the death of the boomer generation profits them, because they can come up with more excuses to eliminate social security, thereby screwing us all. They want to saddle us with a privatized retirement system that they control for their own profits.

    We also need to fight for ourselves and our own interests.

    We can fight for the interests of all, not just our select group.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    Society as a whole takes responsibility for this.

    No it really doesn't, and never has. Families and communities have taken care of that. Not entire societies. It shouldn't be the youth's burden to work their entire life just to ensure the old have a comfortable 20+ years to live while owning everything and giving little back.

    Socialist mentality is about benefit to all, including the elderly.

    Really really depends what you mean by socialism. By owning the means of production? Umm, that's all people, instead of you guessed it, mostly the elderly.

    We also need to fight for ourselves and our own interests. We can fight for the interests of all, not just our select group.

    Those two statements directly contradict each other. So what is it, do you want to have a good life for yourself, the family you raise, or the person down the street who will ask each year that more is taken away so they can live comfortably? In previous 'generations' the family either did well and took care of each other, or the family suffered, rather than everyone in the next town over, the next city, state and county over suffering because everyone wants to live in a home by themselves and have an acre of land.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Thanks for your input, Elon

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    I am not sure 100,000 years of how humanity handled things is suddenly 'Elon' but you go on queen. Perhaps we as a society should be working on our communities and helping each other out rather than thinking isolation and rugged independence is the way to survive life. But hey, you can only tell people to touch grass so much.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children)

    Unfettered exploitative capitalism hasn’t existed for 100,000 years either, the pre-agricultural blueprint was communism. Blame capitalism for rugged individualism and isolation, it’s what it does best: Alienation. So yes, you lick Elon’s boots and apologize for terrible people. That makes you one of them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    the pre-agricultural blueprint was communism.

    Umm, it was hunter gatherer where most people has very short brutal lives and had small communities.

    Blame capitalism for rugged individualism and isolation, it’s what it does best: Alienation.

    Most of the world has capitalism (the entire world to a large degree), and individual individualism is a very very American thing not seen in most other countries around the world.

    I am sorry though, it seems your public school systems haven't been getting the funding the desperately need to teach history for you. Luckily if you spend enough time online, there are a lot of resources that can help you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Funny you say that from your position, because your side is all about slashing educational fund in favor of religious brainwashing education, huh?

    What do you call when someone goes hunting/foraging and makes sure everyone in the tribe is fed and taken care of? Sounds like socialism/communism to me, unlike the “I got mine, fuck everyone else’s mentality neoliberals, ultra capitalists and fascists crave.

    The problem with your mentality is you split the world into winners and losers and blame the “losers” for all their problems while ignoring whatever privilege, good fortune or help you got to your position in life with. Sorry buddy, working a full-time job and having some money doesn’t make you better than anyone else. Get in line as all of us working suckers slowly have our dignity sucked away, and as we fall further behind.

    Don’t worry, we can just bootstrap ourselves harder to survive while the elite crust fucking us over laughs their asses off while the wealth welfare and tax breaks roll in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago*

    This is not old versus young, plenty of old heads want what the younger gen wants.

    She said millennials are getting more politically active...

    And you're attacking her because she's divise?

    By any chance do you consider the phrase "Black lives matter" divisive and think "all live matter" is better?

    Logically that's what you're saying, I just would prefer not to make that assumption, so just trying to clarify.

    Edit:

    And in the spirit of clarity, this is her quote that you said is divisive:

    “Millennials are not punk kids anymore. We’re grown adults with mortgages and kids,” she said. “And we—that generation is starting to be decisive at the polls. And there is anger at being ignored, sidelined, having our economic futures mortgaged by the generations that came before us on everything from the economy to climate. And we’re taking the reins.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent