[morgante]

I really hate this term "emerging adults." Suddenly we're not full adults anymore, just because many people of my generation have failed to live up to the standard of adulthood? I really hope this isn't a trend/term which catches on and justifies continued ageism or the denial of rights.

In general, I've always hated these "generational" descriptions. They're guaranteed to be woefully inaccurate for many people in the generation, yet provide ammunition for ageists to discriminate against young people.

For my part, I haven't lived at home since I was 17 and, at 21, have a very "serious" job (which definitely pays the bills). I'm certainly not an outlier in this regard. The people who fail to do this are simply that: failures. (Though that failure isn't necessarily their fault.) Where does this fit in his theory of extended adolescence and infantilization?

[sho_hn]

> The people who fail to do this are simply that: failures.

Yup, sounds 21 to me. Quick to anger and lash out, quick to judge, moral certitude, and lack of empathy.

For one, there's significant variance to how family units function across the human population. In many parts of the world, living together for far longer than 17 is the norm, and the model of how one generation financially supports the next, or families co-manage/pool their finances, works very differently. Often systems emerge that entrench this (e.g. the massive up-front down payments on rental apartments in the South Korean retail markets, which kids simply cannot afford because there's no time to make that kind of money).

So blanket statements like this reek of cultural superiority and lack of education, frankly. I get that you're pissed because you don't feel you're getting the respect you deserve for your accomplishments (or at least that's what I seemed to read there), but starting with some humility and respect for others might change how people respond to you.

(And yeah, I was financially self-sufficient at 21, too. Big deal. It's possible because I happened to enjoy doing work in an area and market that allowed for it. Many things worth pursueing, and of great contribution to society, don't make you money at 21.)

[morgante]

> For one, there's significant variance to how family units function across the human population.

This article and discussion seem to be pretty squarely focused on the west (and particularly the US). I've lived around the world and realize that the norms are very different elsewhere, but here at least the expectation is for adults to leave their childhood home in their 20s and we have policies in place to encourage that (ex. mortgage tax incentives).

> Yup, sounds 21 to me. Quick to anger and lash out, quick to judge, moral certitude, and lack of empathy.

I might be quick to judge (often a useful trait), but nothing about this made me angry. And, in case you missed it, my second point (that it's not necessarily their fault) was specifically because I emphasize with the situation of people who are adrift in their 20s. As a country, I think we've in many ways failed them by providing insufficient educational and employment opportunities. That it's not their fault doesn't change the fact that living at home at 28 is a failure of the normal American life.

> So blanket statements like this reek of cultural superiority and lack of education, frankly.

Interesting that you dislike blanket statements, yet that's exactly what I was objecting to in the article (the blanket characterization of people in their 20s as "emerging adults").

[sho_hn]

FWIW, I don't actually have any beef with your distaste over the "emerging adults" label - I agree it's not a useful category, in so much that it seems equally loaded with notions about what adult looks like. Both positions seemed like extreme forms of ageism that aren't anywhere near universally applicable, essentially.

[omni]

> The people who fail to do this are simply that: failures. (Though that failure isn't necessarily their fault.)

Did you just omit the second sentence so you could go on a little rant? Or did morgante edit his post?

[sho_hn]

It was there originally. I didn't feel that the second sentence did much to affect the overall thrust of the post ("not necessarily" isn't exactly very generous), and even if it did, it's still quite possible to disagree with the notion that having moved out and achieved financial independence by 21 is a requirement for "not a failure" status.

I feel it's exemplary of an arrogance and myopia many of us programmers are possessed with. Our profession is undoubtedly high-impact, but it doesn't actually require all that much knowledge to be useful at it, nor is it that difficult or time-intensive to learn. It's relatively easy to be successful at it and make money even at a young age. Many other paths are much more difficult, take a lot longer, and are no less worthy. Ones that require much more knowledge, or experience and personal growth, for example.

If you try really hard you can chose to read that parenthesis as a passionate plea for society to recognize this and support them better, I suppose, but I'm not that optimistic.

[bradleysmith]

At 27, I've worked over 10 jobs since 18. I've been a janitor, wrenched rods in the oil field, ranch-handed horses, worked construction, tutored students, edited news publications, and many other things to make money. I did most of these things while going to school, not to make ends meet but to HELP lighten the requirement of money I borrowed from my parents, whom I'm lucky to have willing and able to lend me that money.

At 21, I was pursuing a bachelors of science, and working two jobs. I was NOT paying my own way.

I'm now a VP at a startup working for a livable salary and commission. I pay my bills on my own (and have since shortly after graduating), and am paying my family for the money I borrowed. I have strong alternative job prospects in different roles in multiple industries, and have real experience in a variety of professional settings.

Could I have cut all my expenditures above what I was making at 21, enrolled in a different school, and paid my own way entirely? absolutely. Would I be more or less successful immediately upon doing so? What about now? Hard to answer either, but I am not worried in assuming I would be less successful in both time-frames.

You have a very narrow definition of success in your comment. You are welcome to your opinion, but that particular one will probably be misleading in understanding others. I think you've done very well for yourself if you are self-sufficient at 21, but to define this as success seems quite dismissive to me. As said in another comment, this is labeling all but a select few university students as failures which, as it seems to me, is a plainly bad assumption.

I like to think this is a fair assumption at 30 years old, though. I would imagine it is a source of shame if a person is not paying their own expenses at this age; it certainly would be for me. This term 'emerging adults' is describing those people going from adolescents at 17 to self-sufficient adults at 29+.

I think 'emerging adult' is a quite good description of a human growth stage. Having lived through that time period more completely than you, I know how much growing I've done since 21 both in my ability and acceptance of responsibility to sustain myself and in my understanding of others. I am also much more willing to accept happenstance as a contributing factor for my successes and others' failures, which is something I can suggest to you.

To old gray-hairs in the oil patch, management in tech companies, among VC lenders, or any other 50+year old 'successes', both you and I are still 'kids'. This is true regardless of whether we're paying our own way or not. That, to me, is a good working meaning of 'emerging adult'. The basic notion is that people still have some 'growing up' to do at 21 or even 25, which I agree with.

[morgante]

Sorry, maybe my comment was unclear, but I didn't mean to imply that university students who don't pay their own way are "failures." While I might have been lucky enough to get substantial scholarships, that isn't the expectation/norm.

The shift isn't in expectations of university students, but in expectations of new graduates. That's what this article seems to be focusing on, and the group which is generally lampooned more broadly (graduates who are still living at home).

The term "emerging adult" does a lot of damage. Like you, I have a great role at a startup. But if our entire generation is lumped into a category of "emerging adults" who can barely hold down a job, our opportunities for advancement and appreciation are severely limited. People's experiences in their 20s are just too divergent (some people are still working temp gigs, while you're a VP) for any useful generations and labels like "emerging adults" only serve to discourage/diminish young achievement.

Suddenly we have to be 30 to considered an adult, even if we're entirely self-sufficient?

[bosie]

> For my part, I haven't lived at home since I was 17 and, at 21, have a very "serious" job (which definitely pays the bills). I'm certainly not an outlier in this regard. The people who fail to do this are simply that: failures.

Uni students are failures?