Something that bothers me about the recent 'just make your own lunch to save money' discourse from Boomers is that this kind of thinking represents a material reduction in the American way of living. I was doing some research into when normie wagies could first afford to 'eat out' for lunch in the US en masse, and that appears to happen during the late-1800's.The increase in freight rail and refrigerated cars meant that small food carts and diners and 'dinettes' could serve up slop more easily and more affordably. Normies finally could afford a trip to the slop wagon after their shifts.'Save money by not eating out' may be fine as pure financial advice, but by that rationale, entire stages of life like 'having kids' or 'getting married' should also be skipped for economic efficiency. If the goal in life is to maximize your economic output relative to your spending, why not just turn to outright fraud and crime and scams? You probably won't get caught, after all. There is no actual end to that kind of logic. If 'eating out' becomes unafforable or uneconomical in the US, it means we are steadily eroding through around 130 years of what used to be seen as economic and social 'progress.' And Boomers seem to blithely ignore all of that.
>>535476873It's also bullshit. People in Southeast Asia can afford to eat out for lunch. And boomers weren't scrimpers. They made timeshares a viable business model.
>>535478227That, too. You have to be extraordinarily poor in a place like Vietnam to not be able to afford lunch from a food stall.
My main problem with it is that what they recommend is nutritionally terrible. >Just eat nothing but peanut butter and jellyFuck you, Kevin Oleary.
i just take boomer money advice that they didnt even have to follow growing up as an admittance that they left the world in a far worse place than they received it.
