We all know Marie Antoinette’s famous saying: “If they have no bread, let them eat cake.” This legendary phrase is said to have been her callous response to the poverty of her subjects. Although the phrase was probably not hers at all, it became a symbol of the elite’s absolute detachment from reality.
As it turns out, this aristocratic mindset did not disappear with the guillotine – it just moved to X (formerly Twitter), where today, instead of crowns, these modern aristocrats show off with profile pictures posing with their Teslas, quotes from Elon Musk, and an unwavering belief that “whoever wants, can”… especially if one gets an apartment from one’s parents. These “self-made” (mostly) men will gladly advise you to get rich on investments, secure an apartment with an inheritance, and improve the family budget with a third (or fourth, fifth…) job. If anyone wants, they can find a complete guide to life there.
Thirty or so years ago, there were no officially rich people in the Czech Republic – we were all contented socialist comrades with a uniform wardrobe and identical Umakart apartments. But after the revolution, we jumped into capitalism with the enthusiasm of a village aunt who had just discovered teleshopping – she wanted everything, believed in everything, and didn’t think much about anything.
And today? A small group of people own apartments they have never lived in, while the rest are counting how many days a month they will eat something other than a slice of bread with butter. Or rather, without butter, which is an unnecessary luxury in today’s economy. And if you look at Czech X, you will find many people from the happier group.
Their tweets could be funny – if the authors didn’t take themselves so seriously. They express their wildly original insights about energy costs, education, and housing as if they had just read a tweet by Marie Antoinette and were inspired by her profound political philosophy.
Let’s take a look at three recent X posts that perfectly capture how out of touch these people are, and unfortunately, show how divided our society is, not only economically, but also in terms of values and culture. And let’s see if their proposals stand up to being taken as seriously as the posters would like them to be.
#1 DIY: Delusion It Yourself
@Lukas__Valenta: “That also interested me. Meanwhile, the lady could just buy a stove for 10,000 CZK and go to the forest for wood. She will have free heating, and with a little effort, she can even cook on the stove. A report about absolutely nothing.”
| About the poster: Lukáš Valenta writes most often about football and politics on his profile, and he comments on both with a commitment that many sports fans and political science students could envy. Unfortunately the commitment he brings to these issues is stronger than his logic. |
This tweet is a great example of advice given from a comfortable chair while sipping a flat white or some fine Scotch. Valenta is responding to a news report about the difficulties that some people are having paying for energy by suggesting that the lady mentioned in the report should go collect wood in the forest to light her stove.
Let’s imagine the woman decides to travel back to the 19th century and take his advice.
We start with step number one: buying a stove for CZK 10,000. Valenta seems to think this is just small change that anyone might carry around in their pocket. Maybe for him that’s true, but poorer people usually have very little or nothing saved. And if the lady is already having financial problems now, it will be difficult for her to just conjure up that much money.
However, even if she could get the stove, another problem arises. In order to install a stove in one’s house, the house must be ready for it – that is, it must have a chimney. And if the house has never had a stove, it can be assumed that there is no chimney either.
Let’s assume, however, that the woman found money; perhaps she won the lottery or found it hidden under the floor. So, she bought a stove and somehow managed to get it into the house. I imagine it as a pipe sticking out through a hole in the wall instead of a missing chimney – a DIY construction, economic crisis edition. At this point, however, we come across a third problem, and that is wood. She would need a lot of wood to heat the house for the long term. Even if she managed to gather the wood and somehow get it home, she might receive an unpleasant official letter with a summons to explain to the police. After all, even wood in the forest belongs to someone, and gathering it would be theft. On the other hand, if the woman is in prison, she will save a lot of money on heating the house.
The author also notes that everything is not that simple; cooking on a stove is supposedly not that easy. However, this paternalist tells us that all it takes is “a little effort.” He conveniently ignores other obstacles, such as rebuilding the house, finding ten thousand crowns, or the threat of criminal prosecution. He has no sense of the realities of everyday life. In fact, he is just repeating a modern version of Marie Antoinette’s phrase: “If they don’t have gas, let them heat with wood.”
#2 Humanities? Sure, Let’s Also Pay for Thinking!
@MatejValar: “Introducing tuition fees for humanities fields that have no practical application. Yes, that would be possible. From those, fields where we lack experts could be subsidized. Technical fields, IT, medicine. There is a shortage of doctors and dentists, among other things, due to the capacity of schools. More money could improve this.”
| About the poster: This author mostly shares other people’s posts, but he gets into fights when it comes to discussing them. His world is firmly built on conservative foundations, from which he occasionally takes shots at migrants, the LGBT+ community, or anyone who is not completely white. He would like to limit the rights of these groups significantly, but at the same time, he cries that his freedom of expression is seriously threatened. |
Introducing tuition fees only for the humanities may sound like a good idea. That is, if you don’t know what all is hidden under the term “humanities”, or if you plan to cause social disruption. It is a populist proposal that may sound good to people without knowledge of the issue, but in reality, it is very stupid.
I really wonder if the author expects someone who would like to study, say, library science, to change their mind and choose nuclear physics instead. Probably not – they will simply not go to university at all, and will stay at home with the feeling that education is only for the elite. Even if they decide on some state-approved field, they have a good chance of failing, since they do not have the talent, motivation, or perhaps even the skills for it. But above all, it is something that does not interest them. And when the mountain goes up, the same critics will scold them for why they went there if they do not have the ability. And those critics (like @MatejValar) will be angry that the students are lazy and just abusing the system. In the words of the greatest Czech genius Jára Cimrman: “The author actually takes a position that he also refutes.”
However, even if all people with humanities backgrounds miraculously became doctors or technicians, we would soon find out that those “useless” fields were never actually unnecessary. Because teachers, psychologists, social workers and translators do not fall from the sky. And AI will not replace them.
However, it gets worse. If tuition fees were introduced at, for example, an IT school, it would still be worth it for students to pay for their studies, because they know that after graduating from this field, they will have a high salary. But for example, a social worker in this country earns an average of CZK 28-47,000 per month, which corresponds to the average salary of a person with a high school diploma. So, a university-educated social worker would invest a lot of money in tuition fees, and three to five years of their life, only to then receive the same amount of money as someone who did not waste time studying. On top of that, they would have student loan debt on their shoulders. That sounds like the deal of the century.
However, education (not only in the humanities) has many other advantages. Educated people participate more in public life – politics, activism, elections – and find it easier to navigate politics. They also lead their children to do the same. Ultra-conservative groups and the like should also be big fans of higher education, because people with higher education value marriage more, live in complete families more often, and have a lower divorce rate. Oh, and they also commit suicide less often. Plus, any kind of education – yes, even a “useless” one – tends to expand general awareness, which turns out to be annoyingly useful for things like identifying nonsense and thinking for yourself.
People and society as a whole will benefit greatly from supporting any higher education. Whether engineers and doctors like it or not, we also need to support gender studies, musicology, and linguistics.
#3 Flat-Out Delusional
@Nician15: “Here they constantly talk about the fact that the younger generation can’t afford apartments. And is it a problem to buy an old and small apartment to start with? It doesn’t have to be a new building in Prague, right? If the generations before them could do it, why can’t they?”
| About the poster: We don’t learn much about the author from @Nician15’s profile. In her description, she invites us to smile and states that she doesn’t take herself too seriously – which could mean that she either really doesn’t take herself that seriously, or that she thinks highly of herself. We can’t find her own tweets on her profile, only reposts and comments. Lots of comments. Usually about topics like lawn mowers, pistachio ice cream or chicken coops. She emphasises personal responsibility and repeats that “no one gave her anything for free either.” |
The younger generation is said to complain that they can’t afford housing. And the older generation is outraged by this. After all, they managed it just fine, so why can’t the younger generation?
But the world has changed a bit since their youth. It’s not that the younger generation has become so lazy today, but that the real estate market, the labour market, and the distribution of wealth in the population have changed.
Why not buy a small, old apartment? For two reasons. There is a shortage of apartments on the market, even small and old ones. And when they do appear, they are so expensive that young people cannot afford it. Except for a mortgage. Although, wait – these days, a young person, or even two young people, usually can’t afford that. They would need a large amount of money for a start, but mainly an income that two young people are unlikely to have. So, the only option is to inherit it or win the lottery.
But why are apartments so expensive? Many factors play a role in this, but the main one is the valorisation of savings through real estate. As soon as new buildings are built somewhere, most of them are immediately bought up by developers. And the ones that remain are bought by wealthier people as their “investment property” – meaning their second, third or fourth apartment.
The older generation advises that young adults should move into a rental apartment, then work and save from their salary to buy their own apartment. But here we come across another problem – the level of today’s salaries compared to real estate prices. If people spend half of their income on rent and the rest on food, transport and various fees, they will have nothing left to save.
Another popular argument is the possibility of living outside Prague or Brno. It is true that housing is the most expensive in the big cities. But it is not much better elsewhere either. Rents in regional cities are gradually approaching those in Prague or Brno. And moving to the countryside, for example, will not help you much either. The price difference is not big enough to make up for the money and time lost commuting. The four hours a day that one would spend on the road are better spent on their family, which society is so strongly pressuring young people to start.
So yes, a young couple can find another job and save up for a small old apartment in a miniature rental (if they find one somewhere). However, if they want to have children, they should probably buy an apartment in their thirties where they can raise those future taxpayers.
So, unlike what @Nician15 imagines, young Czech people are not just sitting with their hands in their laps and complaining while waiting for a huge penthouse apartment in the centre of Prague. The reality is that young people live in miniature apartments, some of them slightly bigger than cardboard boxes, or in shared apartments with five other people – and they pay a lot of money for it. For a productive, happy life, or even starting a family, a truly ideal environment. It’s as if someone told them: “If you don’t have flour, bake bread instead of cakes.”
Just Be Happy with Your Crumbs!
The “nobility” of X posters, who think of their fellow citizens as if they were their subjects, constantly tell us how wonderful we are. If someone dares to complain that they can’t afford rent, that their life is complicated by systemic problems, or that they have some ordinary dreams, they are immediately labelled lazy and gluttonous. When young people mention that they would like to live in something that at least somewhat resembles normal housing – without breaking the law or cutting down trees – their wish is immediately considered too selfish. After all, why would anyone wish that their life wasn’t a series of awkward compromises in the form of an apartment that looks more like a cardboard box, or a house with an added chimney?
But it seems that today’s world is not about hard work and effort – it’s about benefits, privileges, connections, and, of course, the ability to be on the right side of X. So yeah, we’re probably doing great – on average. Because if one person eats a whole chicken and the other eats nothing, each person had, on average, half a chicken. Those who didn’t get a chicken could complain that they were hungry, but maybe they are making it up, or simply didn’t try hard enough?
But if nothing else, they don’t have to worry about being lost in life. On the social network X, they will certainly find a lot of useful advice on what they should do better and differently. Of course, from those most qualified – people who have never experienced poverty.
