@StephanSchulz @dmoser
i assume you mean "now" not "not".

let's start with "sick": there were more hospitals. you didn't have to pay for every recipe and quarterly to go to the doctor. there actually were sane unemployment benefits, not the bullshit we have now. you didn't have to pay for public broadcast as quasi tax. medics and firemen weren't regularly attacked. middle school degree was enough for almost all apprenticeships, ...

@bonifartius @dmoser 15-20 year ago was 2004-2009. Hartz-IV was introduced 2003. You seem to think more about rose-coloured version of the 1980s.

@StephanSchulz @dmoser that you have to nitpick about some years give or take only does prove my point :)

@bonifartius @dmoser On the contrary: If you have to grasp far and wide to find your examples, while ignoring all the positive changes, that's a hint that you are cherry-picking (probably not on purpose, but still).

@StephanSchulz @dmoser i'm not sure what was far and wide about my examples. the things i picked are something almost everyone can relate to. i know how things were, don't try to gaslight me nor accuse me of cherry picking while you picked the one example off by a year.

the cutoff should be 2001 anyway.

> The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now — with somebody — and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.

still waiting on the positive changes aside boring technocratic ("highspeed trains!!1") or hedonistic ("legalize weed!!1") bullshit.

@bonifartius @StephanSchulz @dmoser maybe base it a bit more based on facts and reality? You completely ignore a massive change in demographics, availability of work force, access to schools limitations, and generally things such as much lower need for public infrastructure. Unemployment benefits were harder to acquire, work times and employee protection was lower, a class with ten people instead of 40 lets educators do a better job. Some research and more facts would help.

@danielsreichenbach @StephanSchulz @dmoser
you literally named many things proving my point.

change in demographics is largely due to "only get kids when you have settled down"-mindrot instilled into genx and millenials combined with "let's kill every chance of settling down". this of course echoes into the size of the workforce and other things. it's hard to have 2+ kids when you start at early 30s instead of mid 20s.

public infrastructure is the same or worse in most regions except big cities. there is the occasional new building, the big picture is one of decay. there are no more heated waiting rooms in countryside train stations for example.

a class of ten people is obviously better than 40, qed.

@bonifartius @danielsreichenbach @dmoser Change in demographics is because of the demographic transition that has been observed in basically every developed nation. And, on the whole, this is a good thing. Permanent population growth on a finite planet is not sustainable.

@StephanSchulz @bonifartius @dmoser pretty much this. Yet humans fail to appropriately react to this. Implementation of different cultural habits would have helped. Yet instead of acting with care we mostly engage based on guilt tripping random social groups.

@bonifartius @StephanSchulz @dmoser All of these things happened long before any of those generations existed. Calling a responsible decision to only have children when you are grown up enough “mindrot” is is just a cheap way of pushing the blame one someone else without facts.

@danielsreichenbach @StephanSchulz @dmoser
you are indeed correct that these things happened on a larger timeframe.

unfortunately it's mindrot all the way down. the things i'll describe not necessarily happened in linear order but they happened nonetheless.

first was splitting large family units into "core families", everyone living apart. this largely happened during the industrialization. where parents or siblings could have helped, now there is a void. it was another small step to less kids from there, because one person alone can't realistically handle more than maybe three kids (yes, this means children have to be abused at least psychologically in institutionalized child care). still, people are starting families relatively early: a few decades ago, many people had e.g. their house done at age 30. things were cheaper _and_ they were fully trained for their job in their early 20s.

now many people start their career at 30 with some racked up debt and likely a prescription for psychiatric medication (one third of the population and counting, iirc). they pushed away having children to where it almost certainly requires medical intervention at birth. that people are very distanced from their animal nature and effectively are spiritually dead doesn't help with that. birth alone has a good chance of being traumatic for at least the mother.

so they likely will have one, maybe two children tops. spending most of their time with paying off debts or just fighting pure cost of living. instead of spending time with their kids. who are in whole day schools or kindergardens anyway so the parents are able to work their asses off.

this is the mindrot of the successfully "implemented cultural habit" of replacing family - nature, in a sense - with institutionalized child care and other services of a god-like mechanistic state.

it's the wet dream of everyone who wishes for a perfectly controllable population.

thanks for coming to my ted talk. you can keep the tinfoil hats as souvenir.

@bonifartius @StephanSchulz @dmoser it’s a funny story but it basically repeats crude stories made up to extort money and time from you. Had a good laugh though. 🤦

@danielsreichenbach @StephanSchulz @dmoser
i'm not exactly sure who extorts money off of me though. except the state, which you probably don't have in mind with this.

your sarcastic commentary and the facepalm emoji _again_ only proves my point of people having broken souls, sorry. have a funny raccoon.

@StephanSchulz
> What is objectively worse?

Waiting times in every part of public administration (except for tax collection, of course).
Waiting times at doctors & hospitals (especially for surgeries).
Roads & Railroads had to be closed because of negligence. Swiss SBB doesn't plan with connection trains from DB anymore because they're too unreliable.

@bonifartius @dmoser

@musevg @bonifartius @dmoser We do have an aging (and sickening) population - that is true. There is not much politics can do about it (except more immigration, which has its own problems). Yes, the infrastructure has been run down to a degree - but on the other hand, we do have more roads and more and faster long-distance train connections than 20 years ago (when they go ;-).

@StephanSchulz
What does an ageing population have to do with waiting times at pediatrists?
There's a lot of things politics can do about a dysfuntional and inadequate healthcare system, but they rather choose not to.
So we agree: A lot of services and infrastructure have been run down, because austerity.
There you have your objective answers. My pleasure.
@bonifartius @dmoser

@musevg @bonifartius @dmoser An aging population means that old pediatricians retire and new doctors orient their specialty towards the expected needs of the population. And with the drive to keep down insurance premiums, if a bigger part of the budget goes to the elderly, less remains for children.

@StephanSchulz
I'm sure you don't even believe your BS yourself, so please refrain from disseminating any more of it in my direction. Thank you.
@bonifartius @dmoser

@StephanSchulz @bonifartius @dmoser
Bridges, Motorways, Roads, Schools, Universities, Public buildings, etc, are crumbling, because dumb politicians innvented "Schuldenbremse" instead of investing in public infrastructure, while interest rates were below zero.
#schuldenbremse