Oh hey, it's that comic. Was wondering what it was.
However, as accurate as it is for the overly ambitious (an old saying I had about the social media part was that 'millionaires are overrepresented on the internet'), I feel it (and a lot of people online in general) are a bit confused about how many young people/generation Y folks/millenials/whatever else are super ambitious.
Because I don't think the large majority of young people are all as ambitious as the media likes to make out. I feel a large percentage of them are pretty content with a comfortable life in the suburbs with 2.5 kids and a dog. They're either happy with their decently well yet convenient job or would be quite happy to get one so long as it pays for a beer or two at the weekend.
What I do think is that the 'super ambitious' image is itself filtered by most writers working in a tech or media bubble. Of course they think younger generations are incredibly ambitious and not happy with anything less than being millionaires; they're working in industries where those who go into them have that mindset.
Just keep in mind there still are a decent amount of people who just want to have an enjoyable life with a steady paycheck rather than to gamble everything on the hopes of becoming the next Mark Zuckerberg.
While I think the infographics of that article are pretty accurate, I believe that this article doesn't benefit from the recent focus on income inequality and the massive schism of the 1% of the 1% from the other 99.99% of the population.
I agree that expectations are a little unrealistic, particularly with anyone born after the early 90s, but also for many born after the late 70s.
However the quality of life, slack time, and slack resources for happiness that other generations did experience during periods of prosperity are measurably lacking today.
It is not unrealistic to feel unhappy about this; but what continues to amaze me is how ignorantly and emotionally many vote. Blatantly ignoring candidates who's platforms are arguably better able to deliver successful change in favor of candidates who sell them an easy bubble of illusions.
When it comes to economics one can find a plausable theory from a Nobel Prize winner to fit numerous competing platforms.
And social science isn't as solid as that.
I would say there are more equivocal problems than unequivocal and society looks for a leader to make gut feeling decisions. The only discriminator is the success of previous gut feeling decisions or even "it went wrong but it sounded good".
My entire family speaks of what they'll do with my money when the startup I work at "makes it big". I think they're 90% joking.
But that's still 10%.
I have literally gotten into fights with my Mom where she wants a GUARANTEE that if I make over x amount I will give her y amount. I just keep repeating, "This is all hypothetical, let's not discuss it" as she gets more and more upset about not locking me in.
Same here. Asked by my mother, "why wasn't it you who created YouTube?". This was pre Google acquisition.
I remember just staring at her for a moment, as my mother is a very sensible woman, and then just shaking my head and saying, "Mum, you realise that YouTube bleeds money don't you? It's not a real business. You can't pay for free video streaming with banner ads, that doesn't work as a business model".
There's definitely a lack of understanding in older generations of how wealth creation in tech works, and it's definitely due to the flood of irresponsible VC money sloshing around the Valley. Good luck trying to get investment to do a YouTube anywhere but California: even the most basic questions like "if nobody buys you, will you make money" would rule you out right away.
> Good luck trying to get investment to do a YouTube anywhere but California: even the most basic questions like "if nobody buys you, will you make money" would rule you out right away.
Yep, I know this one all too well. When I tried to get a Silicon Valley esque startup funded in London, I found that a lot of accelerators and investors were simply more interested in B2B service businesses where they could be sure of immediate revenue.
The only reason so many large platforms and businesses got started over in the valley is because the investors there are willing to take chances on a company or idea with no real proven business model on the assumption that it'll find one when it becomes popular enough.
Investors in other places will be a hell of lot more skeptical.
I grew up trying to make something like Facebook and be rich while my dad (and everyone else) told me to graduate and get a 9-5 job. The times have certainly changed.
I graduated and became entrepreneur and have meet so many incredible entrepreneurs, some of them in their 80s I do not believe times have changed.
Being young and wanting to be on your own and make something special the world has never seen, even with high risks involved and your family wanting you not to suffer, getting a safe job is as old as the wheel.
I had my family against me on my decision to create my companies because it was extremely painful at first. Then when things start running and you earn dozens of times what they do they change views.
What happens is that every young person believes she is the master of the Universe and the world starts with her. In some ways is true, your world starts when you are born.
The interesting thing is that most people can be rich, in the sense of being financial independent from anybody and do amazing living all her life, having way more than they need, traveling all around the world, have wonderful relationships... but being the next billionaire Mark Zuckerberg is completely unreasonable.
You don't need creating a Facebook but something 3000 times smaller and probably will be way happier, first because it is on reach and second because you enjoy the ride every day, not living a miserable live until you are billionaire(it will never happen because miserable life will burn and destroy you over time).
It's hard to imagine dads didn't always say that to their sons. I wonder how many people spent the turn of the 20th century trying to become the next Andrew Carnegie.