6 ms·

Debt. Terror. Politics. To Seattle Millennials, the Future Looks Scary

36 points by e15ctr0n 10y ago

codemac 10y ago
These feelings are not unique to our generation -- they are part of becoming aware enough of everything around you. I would agree though that most of my friends don't believe they're building a future for themselves. Several friends in their mid-thirties don't have retirement accounts because they strongly believe it supports an unethical economy. The idea that the nation seemed more "stable" in the 70's is an insane amount of historical ignorance though. The 70s did teach us that political engagement was essentially a lost cause, and we need another way to make progress. I'm not sure getting Carter makes up for Thatcher and Reagan's follow up destruction.
- waterphone 10y ago
  Saving money to be able to survive when you can't work anymore is unethical?
  - mkaziz 10y ago
    You can save without putting that money in an IRA/401k and the like.
    - eronhp 10y ago
      I am not american, could you explain why putting your money in a IRA/401k would be considered unethical? And what alternatives do you have?
      - s_q_b 10y ago
        Money placed in a 401(k) is generally invested in the market. The hypothesis is that retirement money is a primary source of capital for investment banks. Some young people hold the view that this is akin to financing the banks' unethical activity, and refuse to participate. Of course this is nonsense. One can always keep invest a 401(k) in hard currency or short term treasuries (T-bills.)
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Money placed in a 401(k) is generally invested in the market. So is money put in a bank. Other than stuffing cash in a mattress, there are very few ways you can save money that don't involve either investing in markets or enabling someone else to do so. > One can always keep invest a 401(k) in hard currency or short term treasuries (T-bills.) Using your 401(k) to buy up central-bank issued currency or government securities (both of which financial sector companies also invest in, and increases in other people investing in them increases their returns and gives them more money for their other operations) -- all while still paying a fee to the investment company running the 401(k) -- isn't any less investing in the financial markets and enabling unethical behavior on the part of investment banks than investing your 401(k) in the stock market is .
        s_q_b 10y ago
        I agree, it's a foolish stance. It's primarily an excuse not to save, sort of like a homeless man telling you he doesn't own a BMW because they're bad for the environment. Even stuffing cash into your mattress affects the total amount of dollars in circulation, and thus represents a zero-interest loan to the government.
      - Spooky23 10y ago
        It's just a wacky rationalization for not saving. Similar to people who preach about the evils of fast food hanging out at Chipotle or Starbucks.
  - codemac 10y ago
    Oh I don't think it's unethical. I do think our bankers act unethically, but I still have a retirement account. My statement was that people feel so strongly about this that I know multiple people that don't save money in retirement accounts.
    - Erik816 10y ago
      That sounds a lot like people that refused to get married until everyone could get married. That might explain 10% of their situation, but 90% was that they didn't want to get married. Saving is hard, and this is just a nice rationalization for their existing behavior.
    - Alupis 10y ago
      Well, time will eventually turn your friend's thoughts towards retirement - and that's when they'll realize who's foot they were shooting all along.
- siculars 10y ago
  Stable in the 70s? I keep hearing this but I don't buy it. Rolling off of Vietnam. The oil crisis. Inflation. Decimation of manufacturing. I wasn't around then but we're they actually good?
  - protomyth 10y ago
    plus a pretty high crime rate in the early 70's with talk of "super predators"
    - jfaat 10y ago
      I'm pretty sure "super predator" was coined in the Clinton era
      - protomyth 10y ago
        Reused, but the early 70's had its own fun with the term. The 90's were already on the down slope of crime. The funner part of the 70's (and part of the 80's) is people doing analysis of the crimes now and finding a serial killer in the data.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    I was fairly young, so didn't have huge awareness of oil crisis, as i didn't drive until the 80s. Slightly tongue in cheek here... The bad: Constant strikes, works to rule, sympathetic strikes (miners going out in sympathy with the rail works and other such silliness), having to be bailed out by the IMF, three day week and doing homework by candle light due to electric strikes. Horrific fashions and decor. So much bad music! Godawful food - this was when the UK earned the reputtion for terrible food, and it was well deserved. thankfully we're well out the other side of that reputation. High inflation if you were a saver. I recall my childhood saving account paying 16% one year! Tech was a calculator, a record player and a speak and spell. The internet was having a penfriend! The good: Simpler expectations, no great media missions to have government "do something" after every minor crime and accident. No 24hr news so little chance of hearing about the 1:1,000,000,000 crime that took place 500 miles away. Terrorism existed, but didn't result in wholesale change of the way we lived. "They won't change our way of life" was the usual refrain rather than "we need a war on terror"[1]. As a householder, high interest rates. Yes really. As a worker it led to regular, large, wage rises - often perceived to be good whatever your stance on the economics. After 3 years at 15%+ the mortgage you made a huge stretch to take has reduced to affordable. After ten or fifteen years its become pocket money. The house was a much lower multiple of wage to start with. After all that you still got tax relief on mortgages (abolished in the 90s). Final pay pensions. Job security, even if you were a manual worker. Your 15yo wasn't demanding an iPhone 6 to replace her iPhone 5 as it's SO much better! (Meanwhile I still used the Nexus 4).
trentmb 10y ago
From yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313808 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313808
FussyZeus 10y ago
The 70's were seen as stable because no American's knew anything about what was happening worldwide. Being connected to pretty much any human on the planet is a really new concept, what we call our "community" has grown exponentially in size, distance, and diversity in the last decade. The world has always been this scary, now we're just paying attention.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  > The world has always been this scary, now we're just paying attention. I see this a lot, and I'm never convinced. Something like the "flash crash" was impossible a decade ago, much less a century. I wouldn't claim that the world has gotten worse, but the capacity for rapid, unpredictable change has never been higher.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Yeah, I think there are two factors at play here. One is definitely the near-realtime worldwide media coverage. But the other is the fact that the same events you hear about living on the other side of the world can affect your life almost as fast as the news spread. If you had just the media of today in a world of 500 years ago, you'd worry only about your nearest neighbour cities and countries. Today, living in Europe, I hear that bankers in the US fucked something up again big time, and I start to wonder if I'll have my job - or any food - next week. That's how the global economy is interconnected. I also worry I may one day wake up and find my city in flames, with the Marines giving us practical workshops on how to run a democracy right. (And to not single out US here - I was scared shitless when the whole Russia/Ukraine thing started, because I was afraid my country will be next, and "next" here means "at any time, under 24 hours from when someone makes a decision".)
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Nobody living through the 70s thought it was stable. It was the end of the postwar boom. High inflation, high uncertainty. 15% mortgages with 20% down as a minimum. Cities collapsing after the white flight. Big industries transforming. Anyone claiming it was a happy go lucky happy time frankly doesn't know what they are talking about.
MrZongle2 10y ago
Another article that bemoans the fate of Millennials, compares them with the Baby Boomers....and somehow ignores the fact that there was a generation between them. Gen-Xers, anyone?
- digitalarborist 10y ago
  Funny how this is taking on a family dynamic: Baby-Boomers: Eldest child, assertive and confident, though takes for granted the opportunities it's been provided by being the eldest, feels the younger kids would be more successful if they just followed their example. Gen-Xers: Middle child, mostly forgotten about, more involved in taking care of the youngest. Mellenials: Youngest child, brash and open, generally optimistic, though sometimes hit hard by the harshness of the world.
- grok2 10y ago
  Also, the article kept mentioning the 90K salary number -- not sure why the article presented such great prospects and had a doom-and-gloom outlook for the people. To me it looked like the people profiled in the article seemed to have varied, fulfilling lives....maybe I am not getting something.
  - s_q_b 10y ago
    Yeah, I got that too. How is a $90,000 starting salary for a javascript bootcamp grad a sign of the end of days? It seems to me the problem is occurring as the "millennials" want to settle down in mid-life, buy a house, buy a car, have kids, and save for their college. In short, the middle class baby boomer lifestyle seems completely out of reach for most in their twenties and thirties.
    - pnathan 10y ago
      > In short, the middle class baby boomer lifestyle seems completely out of reach for most in their twenties and thirties. Seattle houses (condos on the market are usually pretty fancy and on par with house prices) are roughly 450K on the low end; neighboring cities hew to that, with the usual SES modifiers. So if you're making, say, 100K/yr salary, your conservative financial buy of a house is about 300K. Welp. There you go. No house for you. The trick here is that it's leaving out the key aspect: 90K for a bootcamp grad is great pay. It's excellent if you're 22 years old, and want to save for a house over 10 years. In a decade your salary will probably be between 140 and 200, not counting inflation. This is great. If, however, you've farted around following your dreams or just want a new career, you're 32, maybe you have a kid or want one, you are looking at a different time run way for saving, different personal needs, maybe you have health issues, maybe you have a family, maybe they have health issues. I would argue that the key issue here is the stupid high cost of housing that has been produced by stupid anti-development laws.
dmfdmf 10y ago
Not enough sunlight.
nickbauman 10y ago
A "broken political system", please. Like Syria? Most of the Arab Spring? Even Brexit? There are people literally laying down their lives to get an opportunity to participate in such a "broken" system as ours in the US. If you don't like the system, work to change it. In the US at least you won't go to jail for doing that. Good grief!
- ethanbond 10y ago
  Part of "working to change it" is by publishing articles that point out that it's broken. Good grief!
  - nickbauman 10y ago
    So explain "broken". If you say "superdelegates" "ratifying temporary rules" or "DWS" or "Trump", I hate to break it to you: this is not what broken means.
    - ethanbond 10y ago
      Is the condescension actually necessary? How about the first past the post voting system that guarantees two party dominance and thus the silencing of anything but the most extreme and/or most well-funded opinions? That is what broken means.
      - nickbauman 10y ago
        Welcome to America, c. 1928. I'm not saying your criticism is incorrect, you're just really late to the party! With a voter participation that's as low as it is, is there any wonder why what you say is true? So, it's not condescension. I'm being complete sincere when I ask. Look at every democratic president since FDR. All of them are to the left of Clinton on many issues. Yet Sanders, to the left of her on many issues, actually moved the needle and almost unseated her. This is what progress actually looks like! I voted for Bernie yet I'm relieved Clinton will likely trounce Trump. So should you be. If you don't like the system, work to change it instead of claiming "it's broken" and throwing up your hands. I'll be right there beside you.
pnathan 10y ago
It depends on who you ask. The narrative here is of precarious terror. Other people will have a different story. Seattle attracts a lot of people, and they often have sticker shock because they didn't do enough research. And, a lot of people feel entitled to live in the hippest neighborhoods very cheap. That said. The writer needs to contextualize this. In 2001, the year I went to college, the Twin Towers fell and a plane crashed into the Pentagon: being someone who had read some history, I was sure that day that, attackers being intelligent, a wave of guerilla attacks would go off against major military and civilian targets. Surprisingly, that didn't happen. In 1983, deep fear of the USSR was playing out. In 1974, the US was in Vietnam. Many people were dying constantly, and it was on the TV nightly. In 1968, campuses rioted. Bewilderment set in over the nation. In 1961, the Soviets/East Germans put up the Berlin Wall. In 1948, the Cold War started. In 1939, WW2 started. In 1932, FDR became president, in a profound economic situation far worse than what we've seen since. I could go on. The future is scary. But since it happens regardless of our personal choices, our best bet is to keep a stiff upper lip, our chin up, and wade into the stream, keeping a weather eye out to maximize our luck surface.
- narrator 10y ago
  Going by the numbers, terrorism is a really unlikely way to die. Most people on HN are likely to die from heart disease, cancer, or medical mistakes in that order. The most likely cause of death for a person before the age of fifty is a prescription drug mistake, suicide, or dying in a car crash.
  - stillsut 10y ago
    Depends on your denominator. For example, WTC was bombed in the 90's but it didn't fall down. Lightning doesn't strike twice but terrorism does as it seeks out theatric and thematic targets in well known areas. So I wouldn't use the all 300 Million Americans as a denominator, more like those who work/visit iconic locations events e.g. Nice on Bastille day. Also depends if being Jewish is relevant [not counting Israel] and if you frequent Kosher grocery stores, and synagogues, in which case the denominator is again much lower. Also depends if being actively Gay - nightclubs, parades, etc is part of your style. Again much smaller denominator means the proportion of untimely death is much higher. Finally, there's the equivalent risk assesment of how many people in the US have been killed by a Tsunami? The answer is none...so far but it's not impossible in the future for an order or two of magnitude greater fatalities due to terrorist attack, e.g. a whole stadium full.
Kenji 10y ago
Or maybe stop reading news like that and enjoy life in one of the safest times and countries with life expectancies at an all-time high in the entire human history. Take a step back and look at things on a larger scale. Don't nurture your neuroticism and anxiety.
- mywittyname 10y ago
  It's hard not to feed on fear when the media is a buffet full of it.
  - ta0967 10y ago
    Just Say No (to mass media fearmongers). give your tv set to somebody you really dislike.
nostrebored 10y ago
I love how everyone thinks that issues were clear in the past. Racism, anti-war efforts -- we still have those going on today. And if you think that they're any less clear now than they were then, you have your head in the sand. If you think that we don't have issues that need action now -- police brutality, women's rights, etc. -- then you probably wouldn't have been a part of the desegregation movement in the early 60s either.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  I think there's a level where this is true though - clarity of target, not issue. When racism looked like Jim Crow, it was straightforward to say "repeal Jim Crow". Deciding on tactics was complicated, making it happen was hard, but there was a clear goal in mind. Taking on an issue like police accountability or pay inequity is much fuzzier - there's no law to change or villain to conquer. None of which means there weren't fuzzy issues in the past, too. But I think the 'nostalgia' for the issues of the past is often for clear targets like suffrage and school integration.
jseliger 10y ago
Having spent a lot of time in Seattle I'm skeptical of the article; that being said, to my mind the big issue is housing costs, as I describe in "Do millennials have a future in Seattle? Do millennials have a future in any superstar cities?" (http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-future-in-seattle-do-millennials-have-a-future-in-any-superstar-cities/ http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-futu...). If you lower costs enough, a lot of other things become possible, and a lot of issues become less important (http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2016/08/poverty-reduction-cost-of-living-center-for-neighborhood-technology/494348 http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2016/08/poverty-reduction-c...). When I last lived in Seattle full time, the city was a relative bargain and was known for being cool and fun yet affordable. But it hasn't built enough housing to keep up with demand, and while it does better than CA (http://www.vox.com/2015/12/23/10657690/seattle-housing-crisis http://www.vox.com/2015/12/23/10657690/seattle-housing-crisi...), it's still not good enough. That's the crux of the issue, and it's why so many people are moving to Texas: Houston, Dallas, and Austin all have relatively liberal building regimes, which means housing is not a perpetual crisis.
- pnathan 10y ago
  hey, don't you write on Seattle housing periodically? Or is that someone else with a similar name?
  - jseliger 10y ago
    Yeah, but not for a specific media site. I'm more familiar than usual with housing issues in part from simple intellectual curiosity but also because I primarily do grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies (see http://www.seliger.com/blog http://www.seliger.com/blog if you're curious), which means I've worked on lots of band-aid housing projects (e.g. HUD 811, 202, some Section 8, etc.). It is somewhat dispiriting to work on all these projects when the biggest challenges in many cities are not subsidies but being able to build enough housing in the first place. Housing is a solved issue in technology terms, as steel-framed buildings and elevators are quite old; the problems are entirely political and legal (see e.g. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c...).
seiferteric 10y ago
The article mentions climate change, but I don't think puts enough importance. Really the other stuff does not bother me too much because it has all happened before and we have solutions. Meanwhile climate change marches on and we barely talk about it (relative to how important it is). To me it feels so important that I often find it hard to find meaning and enjoyment in my job because I know it is not going to help the climate change situation in any way, and there are few jobs out there that will. All the other issues and "problems" tech companies try to solve seem like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.
- bytefactory 10y ago
  Keep in mind that you're one of the very small percentage of people that _can_ help humanity when it comes to global warming. Your being on HN suggests that you are probably in the small proportion of people that have the abilities and resources that can affect change. Working to save money will give you resources that will let you participate in the decision making process. For example, let's consider a situation where you have $10000 that you would like to use to help. You could donate it to an effective charity, invest in Tesla, use it to lobby local government, buy solar panels, etc. That means your job is actually enormously meaningful!
gm-conspiracy 10y ago
Somebody mentioned a few days ago some rural areas outside of Portland with co-op fiber in gigabit speeds... Can anybody comment on the location of these areas and travel time to Seattle?
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Portland-Seattle is 3 hours one way. You might not want that as a commute.
  - gm-conspiracy 10y ago
    I want to occasionally visit the cities, but work remotely from home.
niftich 10y ago
Though the article is an enjoyable read, it makes the same basic points as many of the "about millennials" articles of the last five years: 20-to-30-somethings are flocking to places of economic opportunity like Seattle, but are worried about cost-of-living, debt/loans, lack of government safety nets, crime (and a segue into worries about terror), uhh.... genetically modified crops.... uhhh... the list goes on. Isn't this consistent with 'coming of age' and trying to make it on your own? The point is, I'm a millennial, I guess (I'm younger than the 31-year-old the article focuses on, and I have no idea anymore what the term 'millennial' actually means besides 'young person'), and these are anxieties that I share. But they don't prevent me from living a normal, relatively uneventful life in the US. Part of growing up is realizing that even when you work hard, success can be elusive, that in the US the government generally does not have your back, and your well-being is entirely a function of your effort, luck, and circumstances. Not to discount their importance, but the issues of the day will vary: equal rights regardless of color in the 1960s, equal rights regardless of sexual identity in the 2010s; proxy wars in the 1970s, terrorism since ... (I lied, terrorism has always been around). The future is uncertain, and we're constantly trying to juggle our resources among our hierarchy of needs of our own immediate needs vs. the good of the community, of people like us, of people different from us, of our national security and 'way of life', of our planet; but the only thing new is that we 'millennials' are new to it.
havetocharge 10y ago
No one owes anyone anything, and most people featured in and reading this article are already incredibly privileged. But it's never enough, someone always has or had it better and life is just so not fair. More whining for things we 'deserve'.
btkramer9 10y ago
"But people now in their 20s and 30s say that the 1960s were different, that there seemed to be a clearer goal then — to end racial segregation, poverty or the war. The economy seemed better and the nation’s future more assured." As someone in my 20s this is very frustrating. Obviously things from the 60s seem clearer now; hindsight is 20-20. Then there's this: "Many are terrified of debt and deeply worried about their economic future" I view this as a good thing. Debt is not fun and should be worrisome. Especially in the US where it's socially acceptable to carry mounds of debt.
- keyboardhitter 10y ago
  > I view this as a good thing. Debt is not fun and should be worrisome. Especially in the US where it's socially acceptable to carry mounds of debt. I feel the same way. The Fear encourages me to save money and evaluate my spending habits. (I'm also in my 20s.)
ryanmarsh 10y ago
Am I alone in my ambivalence to this narrative? I'm trying to be sympathetic but the cohort which is the focus of this article is better off than most of the planet. Sure, they have struggles. Most of us bemoan our station in life. The kids will be fine.
losteverything 10y ago
I think it's an age thing. Older dudes like me have "been there done that" with fear and uncertainty. In the seventies I had my first "wow" events (corrupt gov't "I am not a crook"; Japan making cars; Iran hostages) and thought there was no future. But as an old guy I know the future is better as it always has been. The younger people are only going through their first adult view of the world as newbie thinkers It's like handling death. The first few times you suck at handling it and after many deaths of family and acquantinces it becomes very unscary. You become confident in want to say, etc
keyboardhitter 10y ago
I tried to avoid reading this article because of its headline but I gave in this morning. These generalizations about Millennials are strange to me. I see over and over again in popular media that Millennials are in a rut, and things aren't fair because of a foundation that was laid, that we need to reform politics and make things fair for everyone, abolish debt, give college value, and et cetera. I see all of this coverage and I am confused because I can't relate to it. I'm definitely biased. Did I just get lucky or something? Am I a part of the problem? Is this issue really so common or is it just being exaggerated for pageviews all over the Internet? Context: I am a Millennial, born after 1990. Grew up in poverty on the east coast US. I moved to Seattle last year and I'm making very good money as a systems engineer. I didn't go to college, I've just worked my way through jobs in the last few years since graduating high school. I am daunted by terror and politics just like many other people. I have questions, and I want things to change, too. But I feel like my voice in the community, my opinions, and my fears don't matter because I am not struggling enough, or I make too much money, or that I'm promoting gentrification just by existing. Obviously, these things aren't true. Yet I find myself avoiding discussion about work, money, and the tech industry when I go out for beers with people around my age. What a frustrating culture. I feel discouraged to say things like, "Becoming self-sufficient is NOT impossible!" It's very difficult but not impossible. I also feel like I should keep my success to myself, and that talking about my success is taboo or offensive to others somehow. Again, obviously not true. Maybe I just need to go outside more and read less articles / commentaries to see if this dichotomy even exists.
- pnathan 10y ago
  hello fellow seattleite!

36 points by e15ctr0n 10y ago

These feelings are not unique to our generation -- they are part of becoming aware enough of everything around you. I would agree though that most of my friends don't believe they're building a future for themselves. Several friends in their mid-thirties don't have retirement accounts because they strongly believe it supports an unethical economy. The idea that the nation seemed more "stable" in the 70's is an insane amount of historical ignorance though. The 70s did teach us that political engagement was essentially a lost cause, and we need another way to make progress. I'm not sure getting Carter makes up for Thatcher and Reagan's follow up destruction.

waterphone 10y ago
Saving money to be able to survive when you can't work anymore is unethical?
- mkaziz 10y ago
  You can save without putting that money in an IRA/401k and the like.
  - eronhp 10y ago
    I am not american, could you explain why putting your money in a IRA/401k would be considered unethical? And what alternatives do you have?
    - s_q_b 10y ago
      Money placed in a 401(k) is generally invested in the market. The hypothesis is that retirement money is a primary source of capital for investment banks. Some young people hold the view that this is akin to financing the banks' unethical activity, and refuse to participate. Of course this is nonsense. One can always keep invest a 401(k) in hard currency or short term treasuries (T-bills.)
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Money placed in a 401(k) is generally invested in the market. So is money put in a bank. Other than stuffing cash in a mattress, there are very few ways you can save money that don't involve either investing in markets or enabling someone else to do so. > One can always keep invest a 401(k) in hard currency or short term treasuries (T-bills.) Using your 401(k) to buy up central-bank issued currency or government securities (both of which financial sector companies also invest in, and increases in other people investing in them increases their returns and gives them more money for their other operations) -- all while still paying a fee to the investment company running the 401(k) -- isn't any less investing in the financial markets and enabling unethical behavior on the part of investment banks than investing your 401(k) in the stock market is .
        s_q_b 10y ago
        I agree, it's a foolish stance. It's primarily an excuse not to save, sort of like a homeless man telling you he doesn't own a BMW because they're bad for the environment. Even stuffing cash into your mattress affects the total amount of dollars in circulation, and thus represents a zero-interest loan to the government.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      It's just a wacky rationalization for not saving. Similar to people who preach about the evils of fast food hanging out at Chipotle or Starbucks.
- codemac 10y ago
  Oh I don't think it's unethical. I do think our bankers act unethically, but I still have a retirement account. My statement was that people feel so strongly about this that I know multiple people that don't save money in retirement accounts.
  - Erik816 10y ago
    That sounds a lot like people that refused to get married until everyone could get married. That might explain 10% of their situation, but 90% was that they didn't want to get married. Saving is hard, and this is just a nice rationalization for their existing behavior.
  - Alupis 10y ago
    Well, time will eventually turn your friend's thoughts towards retirement - and that's when they'll realize who's foot they were shooting all along.
siculars 10y ago
Stable in the 70s? I keep hearing this but I don't buy it. Rolling off of Vietnam. The oil crisis. Inflation. Decimation of manufacturing. I wasn't around then but we're they actually good?
- protomyth 10y ago
  plus a pretty high crime rate in the early 70's with talk of "super predators"
  - jfaat 10y ago
    I'm pretty sure "super predator" was coined in the Clinton era
    - protomyth 10y ago
      Reused, but the early 70's had its own fun with the term. The 90's were already on the down slope of crime. The funner part of the 70's (and part of the 80's) is people doing analysis of the crimes now and finding a serial killer in the data.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  I was fairly young, so didn't have huge awareness of oil crisis, as i didn't drive until the 80s. Slightly tongue in cheek here... The bad: Constant strikes, works to rule, sympathetic strikes (miners going out in sympathy with the rail works and other such silliness), having to be bailed out by the IMF, three day week and doing homework by candle light due to electric strikes. Horrific fashions and decor. So much bad music! Godawful food - this was when the UK earned the reputtion for terrible food, and it was well deserved. thankfully we're well out the other side of that reputation. High inflation if you were a saver. I recall my childhood saving account paying 16% one year! Tech was a calculator, a record player and a speak and spell. The internet was having a penfriend! The good: Simpler expectations, no great media missions to have government "do something" after every minor crime and accident. No 24hr news so little chance of hearing about the 1:1,000,000,000 crime that took place 500 miles away. Terrorism existed, but didn't result in wholesale change of the way we lived. "They won't change our way of life" was the usual refrain rather than "we need a war on terror"[1]. As a householder, high interest rates. Yes really. As a worker it led to regular, large, wage rises - often perceived to be good whatever your stance on the economics. After 3 years at 15%+ the mortgage you made a huge stretch to take has reduced to affordable. After ten or fifteen years its become pocket money. The house was a much lower multiple of wage to start with. After all that you still got tax relief on mortgages (abolished in the 90s). Final pay pensions. Job security, even if you were a manual worker. Your 15yo wasn't demanding an iPhone 6 to replace her iPhone 5 as it's SO much better! (Meanwhile I still used the Nexus 4).

trentmb 10y ago

From yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313808 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313808

FussyZeus 10y ago

The 70's were seen as stable because no American's knew anything about what was happening worldwide. Being connected to pretty much any human on the planet is a really new concept, what we call our "community" has grown exponentially in size, distance, and diversity in the last decade. The world has always been this scary, now we're just paying attention.

Bartweiss 10y ago
> The world has always been this scary, now we're just paying attention. I see this a lot, and I'm never convinced. Something like the "flash crash" was impossible a decade ago, much less a century. I wouldn't claim that the world has gotten worse, but the capacity for rapid, unpredictable change has never been higher.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Yeah, I think there are two factors at play here. One is definitely the near-realtime worldwide media coverage. But the other is the fact that the same events you hear about living on the other side of the world can affect your life almost as fast as the news spread. If you had just the media of today in a world of 500 years ago, you'd worry only about your nearest neighbour cities and countries. Today, living in Europe, I hear that bankers in the US fucked something up again big time, and I start to wonder if I'll have my job - or any food - next week. That's how the global economy is interconnected. I also worry I may one day wake up and find my city in flames, with the Marines giving us practical workshops on how to run a democracy right. (And to not single out US here - I was scared shitless when the whole Russia/Ukraine thing started, because I was afraid my country will be next, and "next" here means "at any time, under 24 hours from when someone makes a decision".)
Spooky23 10y ago
Nobody living through the 70s thought it was stable. It was the end of the postwar boom. High inflation, high uncertainty. 15% mortgages with 20% down as a minimum. Cities collapsing after the white flight. Big industries transforming. Anyone claiming it was a happy go lucky happy time frankly doesn't know what they are talking about.

MrZongle2 10y ago

Another article that bemoans the fate of Millennials, compares them with the Baby Boomers....and somehow ignores the fact that there was a generation between them. Gen-Xers, anyone?

digitalarborist 10y ago
Funny how this is taking on a family dynamic: Baby-Boomers: Eldest child, assertive and confident, though takes for granted the opportunities it's been provided by being the eldest, feels the younger kids would be more successful if they just followed their example. Gen-Xers: Middle child, mostly forgotten about, more involved in taking care of the youngest. Mellenials: Youngest child, brash and open, generally optimistic, though sometimes hit hard by the harshness of the world.
grok2 10y ago
Also, the article kept mentioning the 90K salary number -- not sure why the article presented such great prospects and had a doom-and-gloom outlook for the people. To me it looked like the people profiled in the article seemed to have varied, fulfilling lives....maybe I am not getting something.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  Yeah, I got that too. How is a $90,000 starting salary for a javascript bootcamp grad a sign of the end of days? It seems to me the problem is occurring as the "millennials" want to settle down in mid-life, buy a house, buy a car, have kids, and save for their college. In short, the middle class baby boomer lifestyle seems completely out of reach for most in their twenties and thirties.
  - pnathan 10y ago
    > In short, the middle class baby boomer lifestyle seems completely out of reach for most in their twenties and thirties. Seattle houses (condos on the market are usually pretty fancy and on par with house prices) are roughly 450K on the low end; neighboring cities hew to that, with the usual SES modifiers. So if you're making, say, 100K/yr salary, your conservative financial buy of a house is about 300K. Welp. There you go. No house for you. The trick here is that it's leaving out the key aspect: 90K for a bootcamp grad is great pay. It's excellent if you're 22 years old, and want to save for a house over 10 years. In a decade your salary will probably be between 140 and 200, not counting inflation. This is great. If, however, you've farted around following your dreams or just want a new career, you're 32, maybe you have a kid or want one, you are looking at a different time run way for saving, different personal needs, maybe you have health issues, maybe you have a family, maybe they have health issues. I would argue that the key issue here is the stupid high cost of housing that has been produced by stupid anti-development laws.

dmfdmf 10y ago

Not enough sunlight.

nickbauman 10y ago

A "broken political system", please. Like Syria? Most of the Arab Spring? Even Brexit? There are people literally laying down their lives to get an opportunity to participate in such a "broken" system as ours in the US. If you don't like the system, work to change it. In the US at least you won't go to jail for doing that. Good grief!

ethanbond 10y ago
Part of "working to change it" is by publishing articles that point out that it's broken. Good grief!
- nickbauman 10y ago
  So explain "broken". If you say "superdelegates" "ratifying temporary rules" or "DWS" or "Trump", I hate to break it to you: this is not what broken means.
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    Is the condescension actually necessary? How about the first past the post voting system that guarantees two party dominance and thus the silencing of anything but the most extreme and/or most well-funded opinions? That is what broken means.
    - nickbauman 10y ago
      Welcome to America, c. 1928. I'm not saying your criticism is incorrect, you're just really late to the party! With a voter participation that's as low as it is, is there any wonder why what you say is true? So, it's not condescension. I'm being complete sincere when I ask. Look at every democratic president since FDR. All of them are to the left of Clinton on many issues. Yet Sanders, to the left of her on many issues, actually moved the needle and almost unseated her. This is what progress actually looks like! I voted for Bernie yet I'm relieved Clinton will likely trounce Trump. So should you be. If you don't like the system, work to change it instead of claiming "it's broken" and throwing up your hands. I'll be right there beside you.

pnathan 10y ago

It depends on who you ask. The narrative here is of precarious terror. Other people will have a different story. Seattle attracts a lot of people, and they often have sticker shock because they didn't do enough research. And, a lot of people feel entitled to live in the hippest neighborhoods very cheap. That said. The writer needs to contextualize this. In 2001, the year I went to college, the Twin Towers fell and a plane crashed into the Pentagon: being someone who had read some history, I was sure that day that, attackers being intelligent, a wave of guerilla attacks would go off against major military and civilian targets. Surprisingly, that didn't happen. In 1983, deep fear of the USSR was playing out. In 1974, the US was in Vietnam. Many people were dying constantly, and it was on the TV nightly. In 1968, campuses rioted. Bewilderment set in over the nation. In 1961, the Soviets/East Germans put up the Berlin Wall. In 1948, the Cold War started. In 1939, WW2 started. In 1932, FDR became president, in a profound economic situation far worse than what we've seen since. I could go on. The future is scary. But since it happens regardless of our personal choices, our best bet is to keep a stiff upper lip, our chin up, and wade into the stream, keeping a weather eye out to maximize our luck surface.

narrator 10y ago
Going by the numbers, terrorism is a really unlikely way to die. Most people on HN are likely to die from heart disease, cancer, or medical mistakes in that order. The most likely cause of death for a person before the age of fifty is a prescription drug mistake, suicide, or dying in a car crash.
- stillsut 10y ago
  Depends on your denominator. For example, WTC was bombed in the 90's but it didn't fall down. Lightning doesn't strike twice but terrorism does as it seeks out theatric and thematic targets in well known areas. So I wouldn't use the all 300 Million Americans as a denominator, more like those who work/visit iconic locations events e.g. Nice on Bastille day. Also depends if being Jewish is relevant [not counting Israel] and if you frequent Kosher grocery stores, and synagogues, in which case the denominator is again much lower. Also depends if being actively Gay - nightclubs, parades, etc is part of your style. Again much smaller denominator means the proportion of untimely death is much higher. Finally, there's the equivalent risk assesment of how many people in the US have been killed by a Tsunami? The answer is none...so far but it's not impossible in the future for an order or two of magnitude greater fatalities due to terrorist attack, e.g. a whole stadium full.

Kenji 10y ago

Or maybe stop reading news like that and enjoy life in one of the safest times and countries with life expectancies at an all-time high in the entire human history. Take a step back and look at things on a larger scale. Don't nurture your neuroticism and anxiety.

mywittyname 10y ago
It's hard not to feed on fear when the media is a buffet full of it.
- ta0967 10y ago
  Just Say No (to mass media fearmongers). give your tv set to somebody you really dislike.

nostrebored 10y ago

I love how everyone thinks that issues were clear in the past. Racism, anti-war efforts -- we still have those going on today. And if you think that they're any less clear now than they were then, you have your head in the sand. If you think that we don't have issues that need action now -- police brutality, women's rights, etc. -- then you probably wouldn't have been a part of the desegregation movement in the early 60s either.

Bartweiss 10y ago
I think there's a level where this is true though - clarity of target, not issue. When racism looked like Jim Crow, it was straightforward to say "repeal Jim Crow". Deciding on tactics was complicated, making it happen was hard, but there was a clear goal in mind. Taking on an issue like police accountability or pay inequity is much fuzzier - there's no law to change or villain to conquer. None of which means there weren't fuzzy issues in the past, too. But I think the 'nostalgia' for the issues of the past is often for clear targets like suffrage and school integration.

jseliger 10y ago

Having spent a lot of time in Seattle I'm skeptical of the article; that being said, to my mind the big issue is housing costs, as I describe in "Do millennials have a future in Seattle? Do millennials have a future in any superstar cities?" (http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-future-in-seattle-do-millennials-have-a-future-in-any-superstar-cities/ http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-futu...). If you lower costs enough, a lot of other things become possible, and a lot of issues become less important (http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2016/08/poverty-reduction-cost-of-living-center-for-neighborhood-technology/494348 http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2016/08/poverty-reduction-c...). When I last lived in Seattle full time, the city was a relative bargain and was known for being cool and fun yet affordable. But it hasn't built enough housing to keep up with demand, and while it does better than CA (http://www.vox.com/2015/12/23/10657690/seattle-housing-crisis http://www.vox.com/2015/12/23/10657690/seattle-housing-crisi...), it's still not good enough. That's the crux of the issue, and it's why so many people are moving to Texas: Houston, Dallas, and Austin all have relatively liberal building regimes, which means housing is not a perpetual crisis.

pnathan 10y ago
hey, don't you write on Seattle housing periodically? Or is that someone else with a similar name?
- jseliger 10y ago
  Yeah, but not for a specific media site. I'm more familiar than usual with housing issues in part from simple intellectual curiosity but also because I primarily do grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies (see http://www.seliger.com/blog http://www.seliger.com/blog if you're curious), which means I've worked on lots of band-aid housing projects (e.g. HUD 811, 202, some Section 8, etc.). It is somewhat dispiriting to work on all these projects when the biggest challenges in many cities are not subsidies but being able to build enough housing in the first place. Housing is a solved issue in technology terms, as steel-framed buildings and elevators are quite old; the problems are entirely political and legal (see e.g. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c...).

seiferteric 10y ago

The article mentions climate change, but I don't think puts enough importance. Really the other stuff does not bother me too much because it has all happened before and we have solutions. Meanwhile climate change marches on and we barely talk about it (relative to how important it is). To me it feels so important that I often find it hard to find meaning and enjoyment in my job because I know it is not going to help the climate change situation in any way, and there are few jobs out there that will. All the other issues and "problems" tech companies try to solve seem like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

bytefactory 10y ago
Keep in mind that you're one of the very small percentage of people that _can_ help humanity when it comes to global warming. Your being on HN suggests that you are probably in the small proportion of people that have the abilities and resources that can affect change. Working to save money will give you resources that will let you participate in the decision making process. For example, let's consider a situation where you have $10000 that you would like to use to help. You could donate it to an effective charity, invest in Tesla, use it to lobby local government, buy solar panels, etc. That means your job is actually enormously meaningful!

gm-conspiracy 10y ago

Somebody mentioned a few days ago some rural areas outside of Portland with co-op fiber in gigabit speeds... Can anybody comment on the location of these areas and travel time to Seattle?

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Portland-Seattle is 3 hours one way. You might not want that as a commute.
- gm-conspiracy 10y ago
  I want to occasionally visit the cities, but work remotely from home.

niftich 10y ago

Though the article is an enjoyable read, it makes the same basic points as many of the "about millennials" articles of the last five years: 20-to-30-somethings are flocking to places of economic opportunity like Seattle, but are worried about cost-of-living, debt/loans, lack of government safety nets, crime (and a segue into worries about terror), uhh.... genetically modified crops.... uhhh... the list goes on. Isn't this consistent with 'coming of age' and trying to make it on your own? The point is, I'm a millennial, I guess (I'm younger than the 31-year-old the article focuses on, and I have no idea anymore what the term 'millennial' actually means besides 'young person'), and these are anxieties that I share. But they don't prevent me from living a normal, relatively uneventful life in the US. Part of growing up is realizing that even when you work hard, success can be elusive, that in the US the government generally does not have your back, and your well-being is entirely a function of your effort, luck, and circumstances. Not to discount their importance, but the issues of the day will vary: equal rights regardless of color in the 1960s, equal rights regardless of sexual identity in the 2010s; proxy wars in the 1970s, terrorism since ... (I lied, terrorism has always been around). The future is uncertain, and we're constantly trying to juggle our resources among our hierarchy of needs of our own immediate needs vs. the good of the community, of people like us, of people different from us, of our national security and 'way of life', of our planet; but the only thing new is that we 'millennials' are new to it.

havetocharge 10y ago

No one owes anyone anything, and most people featured in and reading this article are already incredibly privileged. But it's never enough, someone always has or had it better and life is just so not fair. More whining for things we 'deserve'.

btkramer9 10y ago

"But people now in their 20s and 30s say that the 1960s were different, that there seemed to be a clearer goal then — to end racial segregation, poverty or the war. The economy seemed better and the nation’s future more assured." As someone in my 20s this is very frustrating. Obviously things from the 60s seem clearer now; hindsight is 20-20. Then there's this: "Many are terrified of debt and deeply worried about their economic future" I view this as a good thing. Debt is not fun and should be worrisome. Especially in the US where it's socially acceptable to carry mounds of debt.

keyboardhitter 10y ago
> I view this as a good thing. Debt is not fun and should be worrisome. Especially in the US where it's socially acceptable to carry mounds of debt. I feel the same way. The Fear encourages me to save money and evaluate my spending habits. (I'm also in my 20s.)

ryanmarsh 10y ago

Am I alone in my ambivalence to this narrative? I'm trying to be sympathetic but the cohort which is the focus of this article is better off than most of the planet. Sure, they have struggles. Most of us bemoan our station in life. The kids will be fine.

losteverything 10y ago

I think it's an age thing. Older dudes like me have "been there done that" with fear and uncertainty. In the seventies I had my first "wow" events (corrupt gov't "I am not a crook"; Japan making cars; Iran hostages) and thought there was no future. But as an old guy I know the future is better as it always has been. The younger people are only going through their first adult view of the world as newbie thinkers It's like handling death. The first few times you suck at handling it and after many deaths of family and acquantinces it becomes very unscary. You become confident in want to say, etc

keyboardhitter 10y ago

I tried to avoid reading this article because of its headline but I gave in this morning. These generalizations about Millennials are strange to me. I see over and over again in popular media that Millennials are in a rut, and things aren't fair because of a foundation that was laid, that we need to reform politics and make things fair for everyone, abolish debt, give college value, and et cetera. I see all of this coverage and I am confused because I can't relate to it. I'm definitely biased. Did I just get lucky or something? Am I a part of the problem? Is this issue really so common or is it just being exaggerated for pageviews all over the Internet? Context: I am a Millennial, born after 1990. Grew up in poverty on the east coast US. I moved to Seattle last year and I'm making very good money as a systems engineer. I didn't go to college, I've just worked my way through jobs in the last few years since graduating high school. I am daunted by terror and politics just like many other people. I have questions, and I want things to change, too. But I feel like my voice in the community, my opinions, and my fears don't matter because I am not struggling enough, or I make too much money, or that I'm promoting gentrification just by existing. Obviously, these things aren't true. Yet I find myself avoiding discussion about work, money, and the tech industry when I go out for beers with people around my age. What a frustrating culture. I feel discouraged to say things like, "Becoming self-sufficient is NOT impossible!" It's very difficult but not impossible. I also feel like I should keep my success to myself, and that talking about my success is taboo or offensive to others somehow. Again, obviously not true. Maybe I just need to go outside more and read less articles / commentaries to see if this dichotomy even exists.

pnathan 10y ago
hello fellow seattleite!