this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
1171 points (96.5% liked)

US Authoritarianism

868 readers
317 users here now

Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.

There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree

See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link

Cool People: [email protected]

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 176 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Look up 'Hell's Angels" by Hunter Thompson.

There's a chapter in the book where he talks about the economics of being a biker/drop out/artist circa 1970.

A biker could work six months as a union stevedore and earn enough to stay on the road for two years. A part time waitress could make enough to support herself and her musician boyfriend.

Or, to put it another way, in 1960 minimum wage was $1.00/hour and the cost of the average home was $11,000.00. A burger flipper could get hired on high school graduation day and be a home owner in 20 years without ever getting a raise.

[–] alvvayson 98 points 8 months ago

That's the power of the New Deal coalition that ruled for 30 years.

[–] Anticorp 22 points 8 months ago (3 children)

You can still be a nomad at today's wages. I have a friend who works for a school year as a teacher, and then travels extensively for a couple of years. He lives like a nomad though, no fancy hotels or accommodations. That's what the Hell's Angels did back then too, in addition to plenty of additional illegal activities which provided them extra funding.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And crime is sort of the only way.

And the only thing that makes sense? If there's a regime of ownership and social order that tells you "you get nothing. Work or die.", what do you even call someone who doesn't fight back?

[–] Ultragigagigantic 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What do you call a war where one side cant fight back? A genocide.

The class war rages on, even if you try to ignore it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

No, if you turn your headphones up really high it how's away. Quantum physics thing, discovered at Livermore labs... Just this year I think.

[–] go_go_gadget 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

no fancy hotels or accommodations

Isn't boondocking a felony in lots of areas?

[–] AngryCommieKender 10 points 8 months ago (3 children)

If it is, it needs to be challenged in the courts. In the US you have a constitutional right to be homeless.

[–] NightAuthor 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Do you have a constitutional right to occupy space that you down own?

My understanding is that you basically are at the whims of whoever owns the land, be that an individual, city state, or federal government. Even the fed doesn’t allow you to live at their parks over a certain amount of time, even if you’re paying for camping permits.

[–] AngryCommieKender 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

There's a very large percentage of land that isn't owned by anyone, around 10% of the country (which amounts to millions of acres still affected by The Homestead Act,) and while you're kinda correct that you can't camp indefinitely in one spot on state or federal land, the requirements are that you keep your camp site clean, and move to a new site once a week.

[–] disguy_ovahea 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

That’s absolutely incorrect. You can be incarcerated for homelessness in Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, San Diego, and Portland, where it is considered a criminal act. It has been challenged and deemed a state’s right to criminalize homelessness.

[–] AngryCommieKender 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Johnson v. Grants Pass disagrees. 2018 SCOTUS upheld your right to be homeless.

[–] disguy_ovahea 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They didn’t mandate that the state or county cannot charge and prosecute homelessness. You can appeal if you can afford to, but you can’t, because you’re homeless.

[–] AngryCommieKender 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They outlawed charges or even tickets. The only reason these unconstitutional laws are on the books is that they haven't been challenged.

I can't challenge them because I own a home in California, so I'm not harmed by these laws. The ACLU would be perfectly happy to take these cases without a fee, that's what they're there for.

[–] disguy_ovahea 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I’ve been reading up on this since I read your reply. You’re right that they can no longer charge one with homelessness. However, it seems the workaround is to target the homeless with panhandling, loitering, or trespassing charges. I also just learned that in many cities it’s illegal to give food, water, clothing, or money to a homeless person. So it’s better, but not by much.

[–] AngryCommieKender 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

They've tried that (panhandling, encroachment, etc. tickets) three times so far in San Diego, every time it gets challenged and struck down by the state supreme court. This has only happened because homeowners like myself have been doing homelessness outreach, and the lawyers work for free

[–] Daft_ish -4 points 8 months ago

The new constitution is spelled T-R-U-M-P

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

You can stay at national forests or BLM for up to two weeks at a time, and no more than 2 weeks in a month at the same park.

[–] iopq -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

...And?

Some folks try to play off that people are richer today because you have more two car families. The counter argument is that if both parents work the family needs two cars. One fact alone doesn't paint the picture.

[–] iopq -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm saying the 1960s were worse. By any measure

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So, you believe that all the technological and medical improvements of the past six decades were the result of massive inflation and the collapse of the middle class?

Could you elucidate?

[–] iopq 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What are you talking about? We are richer now than then.

Just look up, I don't know, the percentage of homes with hot water or electricity. Look up percentage of homes with an indoor toilet. It's nearly 100% now... But in 1960s these were not a given

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Or, to put it another way, in 1960 minimum wage was $1.00/hour and the cost of the average home was $11,000.00. A burger flipper could get hired on high school graduation day and be a homeowner in 20 years without ever getting a raise.

Are you saying that all the technological and medical progress of the last 60 years was a direct result of the decrease of real wages?

[–] iopq 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Real wages are up since the 1960s

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Let's be liberal and go with California's $20.00 minimum wage. Price of an average US home today is about $350,000. If a minimum wage worker lived with their parents and saved all their they could buy a house in about 9 years. The 1960's version could do it in about 5 years.

The actual price of the average home in California is over $750,000.00