[Aqueous]

Yay! Another article where the older generation shits on a younger generation.

Is it possible - and this is just me talking here - that maybe our generation isn't composed of a bunch of emotional weaklings who can't bear the stress of life, but that you guys fucked it up pretty badly for us? Your self-interested conservative personal responsibility do it yourself policies bankrupted the economy because you were asleep at the switch, and now we can't find jobs.

I can guarantee you that if you flip back several decades you'll find an article in Life Magazine written by some asshole asking the question "Why are the baby boomers such pussies? We fought World War II for crissake!"

A load of horseshit. Life is hard. Help, you assholes.

[Glyptodon]

Overall I think the article is true, but I've also been saying the same thing myself about people my age for several years.

I'm reminded that a friend of mine in grad school occasionally gets phone calls from the parents of the college students in some of his classes when they do poorly, and that parents are often the ones setting up tutoring and such for their in-college kids, rather than the students themselves.

It's plain ridiculous.

Feeling like you want to become self supporting and out from under the parental thumb definitely seems to be unusual in my generation.

[javert]

> Your self-interested conservative personal responsibility do it yourself policies bankrupted the economy

This is a vicious slander.

I mean, clearly the student loan education bubble, Freddie and Fannie-backed mortgage bubble, and the Social Security ponzi scheme were based on policies of "personal responsibility" and "do it yourself."

As a successful person who is most likely in the same generation as you, I'm looking forward to potentially trying to move to a country where I can take personal responsibility---rather than having people like you claw away whatever I earn to spend on more boondoggles.

It is clear that I am no longer welcome in most of the Western world, but just a piece of meat to be taken advantage of.

[djur]

You either don't know what "Social Security" means or you don't know what "ponzi scheme" means.

[javert]

Are you aware that the US social security system will become insolvent in the future?

It is literally the case that the later taxpayers are paying for earlier taxpayers' social security.

It's not formally a Ponzi scheme, because it's not entered to involuntarily, it is forced.

[djur]

Social Security is a pay-as-you-go social insurance program, not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is fraudulent because it promises to pay back a greater return than is invested. Social Security is designed to pay back about the same as was invested on average. The reason this works is that the economy and the population are growing over time, so you have more people paying for the current SS generation's retirement than are in the current SS generation.

Social Security is a defined-benefit entitlement, so its spending requirements are fairly predictable. The rate of growth of the economy and the population, on the other hand, is not so easily predictable. This is why the Social Security trust fund was established in the 80s -- to patch the gaps that would result from the smallish Generation X paying SS for the Baby Boomers.

Depending on how long the Baby Boomers live and how the economy performs over the next few decades, the trust fund may run out in the next few decades. This will require either a cut in benefits or additional revenue for the system. Adjusting the inputs and outputs for a program to keep it in equilibrium in a chaotic, unpredictable world isn't fraudulent or a sign of a broken program.

So no, I'm not aware that Social Security will become insolvent in the future. Any of a number of fairly simple adjustments between now and then would prevent the projected benefit cuts. Even in the absence of a fix, Social Security will still pay out the lion's share of its promised benefits.

[javert]

Thanks for the explanation, though it basically confirms the same picture I already had in my mind.

What you call "additional revenue for the system" is actually a government bailout by tax increase (plus inflating the money supply).

It is absolutely fraudulent. It is fraudulent to force me to invest in a fund when I want to invest my money elsewhere because I think I can get a higher return.

It is also fraudulent to force me (as a taxpayer/holder of USD) to bail out such a fund.

I called it a "Ponzi scheme" because of the idea that later "investors" pay for the prior generation of "investors"---which, like a Ponzi scheme, fails (and requires a bailout) when the next generation isn't large enough.

Admittedly, my definition of "fraudulent" above isn't true in a strict accounting sense. AFAIK the books are essential "open." Nobody is being deceived. However, it is someting worse than being deceived. It is knowing the unfortunate truth, but being forced to "invest" (and to "bailout") anyway.

[djur]

How is it a "bailout" for the government to adjust the funding of a tax-funded program by adjusting the tax? By that definition, I'm being forced to bail out the military every time they spend tax money to buy a jet fighter.

You are thinking of Social Security as an investment program. It is not. The government is not forcing you to invest in a fund, it is taxing you to pay for other peoples' benefits. Eventually, it will tax other people to pay for your benefits.

The essential quality of fraud is intentional deception. You might not like being taxed for Social Security, but you are not being tricked, gulled, or conned into it.

[GuiA]

The average parent's age for first child has never been higher, just like the rate of 20-somethings still living with their parents.

No matter what the reasons for that are, you can't refute that it's bound to have some interesting consequences on the psychology of the 20-somethings in question.

[Swizec]

Average age is only up because women started child bearing later.

About a hundred years ago it was common for men in their very late 20's to have finally built a life of their own and get a bride. A bride who was 16 or so because that meant she still had plenty of child bearing years ahead of her.

What if men just got back to that same state, while women have joined men in this status instead of having the whole teenage pregnancy thing?

[wambotron]

Either you have rich grand/great-grandparents or we come from VERY different places. My family has been historically poor up until my dad, who is just middle class now. Both sides of my family have struggled until death. I don't know of anyone other than maybe one or two who had parents growing up that had "built a life of their own," then married and started a family in their very late 20s.

[Swizec]

Historically I come from a family of peasants. Especially after WW2 both sides of my family were poor, but there was a period before then that one side was rich farmers.

They were only rich because my great grandfather bought the farm where he used to work as essentially slave labor (they'd only get food and board in return for being manual labourers, it was a thing back then).

But anyway, this age thing was something I read in books about late 19th and very early 20th century.

[wambotron]

I completely agree. Hell, some first-time parents are as old as many first-time grandparents.

[sp332]

you can't refute

Actually, maybe we could, if we had some evidence, which you don't.

[abduhl]

Life is hard. Help, you assholes.

Are you serious with this statement? This is exactly the attitude that the article and all of the others like it are referring to.

Life is hard. Be harder.

[sp332]

Ever wonder why people in third-world countries generally don't grow up to be successful like boomers did? Did you always think it was because they weren't tough enough? Actually, it's because the boomers had an awesome environment to grow up and have a career in. That environment doesn't exist anymore because the economy has tanked. Boomers literally have no idea how good they had it.

[abduhl]

Yes, and the millennials have an awesome environment to grow up and have a career in. The tech industry has one of the lowest barriers to entry ever seen. The more advanced science fields are making dramatic strides, all you need is the education and motivation to get into the industry.

Quit looking backwards with green tinted glasses and consider how good you yourself have it right now. Take some goddamn responsibility for your own life decisions.

[rjbwork]

I'm in tech, and am not really complaining for myself. But non-STEM folks are having a pretty tough time. The digital age has devastated non-STEM fields and majors. There was a time when getting an English or History degree from a respectable university opened a wealth of opportunities. Now they're more likely to be found selling shoes or making my coffee. My mother, a sweet 55 year old woman who never attended college, is the accounting manager for a business with tens of millions per year in revenue.

How? She was given secretarial work in the 70's and slowly clawed her way up while raising 3 kids, and was even lucky enough that her 7 years out of the work force in the early 90's when we were young didn't affect her career trajectory very much.

The possibility of this happening nowadays is slim to none. You need a degree to even be looked at for a lot of office work these days, and you can be sure you're not going to be promoted when they can bring in someone younger, with a degree relevant to their business sector, willing to work for less to fill any positions you could potentially be considered for. This also applies to lots of liberal arts majors as well as just high school students.

It also doesn't help that for as long as I can remember, my teachers, parents, and counselors have told me, my siblings, my friends, my classmates, and my generation that we should follow our passions and dreams, and success will follow. Luckily I like math, science, computers, and I've been a bit of a geek since I was a toddler, so I fell into my, coincidentally, highly-in-demand CS degree quite naturally. The same cannot be said of the bookish history, literature, or philosophy nerds I know.

There is blame all around, but from my perspective it seems like a lot more of it lay at the feet of our forebears than us.

But hey, at least us computer geeks have it good, eh?

[wambotron]

At what point in history was it ever easy for liberal arts folks? Unless you were commissioned by someone to do something lucrative, you're pretty much shit on your entire life. Whether it's undervalued or not is debatable, but I will say that nothing has changed as far as perception of liberal arts other than some broader acceptance.

What has changed is that pretty much everyone goes to college now, and many of them go for liberal arts degrees. You can't have 1000 people going for 1 job and expect them all to get it.

[dllthomas]

I worry a bit that you might be confusing liberal arts and fine arts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Liberal_Studies

[philwelch]

> There was a time when getting an English or History degree from a respectable university opened a wealth of opportunities.

Unless it was Harvard, no, it didn't. People always joked that a liberal arts degree left you prepared to work in fast food and little else.

[sp332]

The tech industry has one of the lowest barriers to entry ever seen

Why does no one tell the millenials then? If I wasn't already in tech before college, I would have no idea that it was a good career move (Computer Science is a very small department). Where do you get information to make a good decision?

[res0nat0r]

So you are stating that the hardships of a college student in the USA right now even remotely comparable to a poor person trying to get along in a third world county?

[sp332]

Nope, I'm saying you have to have a really good environment (i.e. "help") to be that successful.

[sesteel]

What does successful mean to you?

[sesteel]

This is conjecture and hyperbole on your part. The economy has grown substantially and rather consistently over the past 40 years (except for manufacturing).

It seems silly, but I feel compelled to remind today's youth that we all stand on the shoulders of giants. Also, none of us know as much as we think we do.

[maxerickson]

There are some interesting confounding factors though. Between 1970 and 2000, U.S. workforce participation increased by about 8%, while the population grew by 80 million people.

And while lots of manufacturing jobs have moved overseas or whatever, automation has had at least as much impact. If you look at it in terms of production, U.S. manufacturing has grown over time. Even something like the steel industry is pretty much at par with the output of 40 years ago, they just do it with a lot fewer people.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 (fiddle the dates)

http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/#steel

[wwweston]

> Life is hard. Be harder.

And if you can't, sorry kids. Guess you were just too weak.

(There's a name for this philosophy, by the way. Perhaps as a hard competitor in this post-industrial knowledge economy, you already know it.)

Look, a strong work ethic and resourcefulness are great personal advice. Once you start talking about an entire generation (particularly the younger one) as we are in this article, we're well out of the realm of personal advice, though, and likely enough heading into Cicero-times-are-bad territory that maybe -- just maybe -- it's worth also examining some systemic issues and talking about how we can help each other.

Or if that's a little too kumbaya for you, cultivate the future demand and labor pool.

[onetwofiveten]

I'm in my early thirties and pretty successful (because I worked hard and am clever). Yet, even I can see this generation is being squeezed, between high unemployment, low wages and student debts. Not to mention high housing prices (and rent). What's the point of saying "be harder"? It doesn't change reality.

[rewind]

Yay! Another comment where the younger generation blames the older generation. You see the problem with this type of argument, right?

[winstonx]

The older generation effects the younger generation.

[sesteel]

And vice versa. We are all in this together.

[winstonx]

The older generation literally creates the younger generation.

[WalterBright]

On the other hand, today you can start a business in your bedroom, collaborate with people all over the world to develop a product, and instantly reach a world market with your product, all for pretty much $0.

[dkural]

There a literally millions of open positions in the US economy, and millions of upper-middle class liberal-college educated jobless millennials who can't be bothered to master these STEM fields to qualify. They all want to be an aid worker & save the world or something, or to be paid for playing a banjo. The only reason half of the people even get jobs is better qualified, harder working foreigners are kept out of the United States with immigration barriers. Dear whiny millennial: It's going to get much worse.

[djur]

"literally millions of open positions in the US economy": And almost four times as many unemployed people seeking work. Those open positions numbers are based on self-reporting, too, and they don't account for whether companies are actively seeking candidates, are offering a competitive salary, or are expecting reasonable qualifications. Lots of companies would love to hire busloads of experts at a bargain rate if they were available, but in the absence of a bumper crop of cheap geniuses they're happy to stand pat.

Surveys have shown that companies are having more trouble hiring people who have enough relevant experience than people with sufficient educational qualifications or technical skills [1]. To the extent there's a structural unemployment problem in the US, it's a bootstrapping problem -- too few entry-level positions in professional fields to supply the long-term need for experienced workers in those fields. This fits with my anecdotal observations of my 20-something friends -- their BAs won't even get them on the bottom of the ladder.

"who can't be bothered to master these STEM fields": Try: can't afford training in those fields. Try: can't get a job in those fields without years of experience.

[1]: http://business.time.com/2012/06/04/the-skills-gap-myth-why-...

[dkural]

This would be more credible if I didn't find qualified candidates who are 20 years old with skills + knowledge many in their 30s lack. I have nothing against a liberal arts degree, but not teaching yourself / taking computer science, mathematics, statistics during college automatically disqualifies you from many white collar jobs requiring strong quantitative reasoning skills. This is not about on-the-job experience, it's about basic skills.

[rjbwork]

The previous generations didn't exactly do anything to help us realize this reality. Hell, I feel like I won the roulette wheel of life sometimes in that my CS degree, which I naturally graduated towards, is in great demand. And other kids were pushed equally strongly to their history, sociology, philosophy, and english degrees.

[dkural]

Instead of blaming parents for 'no one told us', a second option would be look around and ask: How does philosophy, history, sociology, english help me do something in a company, besides HR, Sales, Marketing, and with luck, Management? What exactly did your friends think they'd do with their degrees, vis-a-vis getting a job?

[andyl]

Classic butthurt!!

Maybe this will help: http://bluebirdofbitterness.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/butt...