Yuppy Shite

more of a post-yuppie i guess

5 Likes

Even Ikea sell one for nearly £700.

lot of people in the no category are kidding themselves -

.

1 Like

It’s a restaurant for hypsters.

1 Like

People seem to be kidding themselves about their upward mobility, but I sure as hell am not young.

1 Like

I’m not sure that I’m young enough to qualify these days.

Mauppy?

I think we’re DINKs, hoping to become DINKERS.

you could just like colinfilth’s post you know!

5 Likes

I’m most definitely not a yuppy, but I do own a house (with friend), like my home gadgets, go to football and drink fancy craft beers. So by what people are posting in this thread, I’d be regarded as one.

Note I also give to charity through my wages and donate to the DiS fund. I lived on a council estate as a kid, went to a very shit school in Croydon, and had to earn my own pocket money and football tickets through paper rounds, summer jobs and selling football programmes.

I also don’t spend that much going out (apart from football), as I’m not that social (not that I don’t want to, it’s due to anxiety).

1 Like

Yeah but this thread is 300+ posts of bollocks.

5 Likes

100% agree with you there. But the question was “do you think, based on this thread, you’d be classified as a yuppy?”

Hence why I voted yes.

I’m basing my response on marckee pointing out that everybody’s getting yuppies wrong :smiley:

Charity is just a right wing way of assuaging guilt rather than trying to make necessary structural changes. Charities don’t address the causes of poverty.

Under capitalism, spending money is better than hoarding wealth in banks and having money circulating in the economy may actually do more to alleviate poverty than donating to charity.

1 Like

if you happen to be rich and earning a good salary, how should you be spending it?

asking for a friend

I don’t think it’s fair to say that the principle of giving something you don’t need to those with less is right wing.

1 Like

I mean every decision you make in your life is a value judgement whether you have the mental resources at the time to think of it that way or not.

3 Likes

Yes, capitalism is unacceptable, but charities shouldn’t exist - charities point to societal failure. At best, charities provide a short-term fix. At the worst, they don’t do anything about structural inequalities and reinforce hierarchies and enable abuse. In a capitalist economy it’s “better” to have money circulating, creating stable jobs with high wages. This would probably require state intervention ¯ \ _ (ツ) _ / ¯

Not all jobs are ethical jobs - prisons create jobs and circulate wealth, and they should be abolished too. The point is, it shouldn’t be impossible to have a money economy without the necessity of philanthropy. The premise of ‘donate to charity instead of buying an expensive wardrobe’ is disingenuous, because charities shouldn’t have to exist and the people who contribute to the creation of the wardrobe should be adequately compensated for their labour.
Cheap wardrobes are cheap because of exploitation of people and resources in other parts of the world.

The choice between an expensive or cheap wardrobe is moot anyway, nobody should have to buy a wardrobe - all housing should have built in wardrobes as standard.