[pcstl]

No, not really. More of a statement on how out of touch with reality it seems first world inhabitants are, to the point where they think not having a guaranteed well-paying job or not being as rich as their parents is comparable to the kind of life Hobbes was thinking of when he coined that idiom.

[enraged_camel]

Having your frame of reference defined by your own circumstances and the standards of the society you live in is not "out of touch." People in other parts of the world might have it worse — that is completely irrelevant when it comes to personal happiness.

[pcstl]

It is not irrelevant if you want to use an expression such as "nasty, brutish and short", coined by Hobbes to refer to the condition of man living by himself, without a social structure to support him. It implies that people in the first world - specifically, the US - are living in conditions somehow comparable in their uncertainty to people living in a pre-civilized state. If anyone is minimally realistic about the first world, they will know that it is an absurd statement.

This kind of overly dramatic phrase is not accurate nor conducive to productive debate. Its only reason for existing is to make people indignant and unaware of their own privilege in order to make them support your cause of choice - or, more frequently, in order to make them fight the people who you designate as the "cause" of their "suffering".

There's also a personal aspect to my comment, in that I live in a country where, even if the USA's living standard keeps falling for the next 50 years, it will probably be just about comparable to here. Watching the most privileged people in the world be all "woe is me, I might not be as rich as my dad!" is not something I'm very able to take seriously.

[Flozzin]

I'm getting the impression that since the author overstates his case, by using a quote by Hobbes, his entire point is invalid. Therefor, millennials must accept their fate. And the fact that their lives will be worse than previous generations doesn't matter. Because the Hobbes quote is misused, and because other people have way worse lives.

I disagree. So what if he misused the quote. His overall point is valid. And other people have it worse, that's unfair, we should do everything in our power to improve everyones lives. And all backsliding should be protested.

[pcstl]

My point isn't that people should "accept their fate", just that they should be more realistic about how bad things really are. If you start treating minor setbacks as gigantic issues, you start having overreactions that might just make things even worse.

[enraged_camel]

Pretty much. Just because the quote may have been somewhat misused — or used out of context — doesn't invalidate his main point.