5 ms·

When older people complain about supposedly whiny, entitled, self-centered and disloyal young people, exactly one work comes to mind: Projection. We came of ag

When older people complain about supposedly whiny, entitled, self-centered and disloyal young people, exactly one work comes to mind: Projection. We came of age while society fell apart. We're in our 20s and won't be able to own a house or have children until our mid-30s, due to the still-absurd housing costs, absent job security, and lack of a decent health care system. The Boomers were born into an affluent, forward-looking society in which it was embarrassingly easy to advance. You could be a pot-smoking hippie dropout at Woodstock in '69 and a CEO by '75, whereas we have to start racking up internships (unpaid, in most industries) in high school. They inherited a society that would go forward and achieve great things so long as no one came along and fucked it up (as the Reaganites did). We inherited a giant, potentially intractable, mess.

hello_moto 16y ago
I somewhat agree with your statement while I can't explain what's going on in this world we live today. There are many CEO out there that read or listen advises on how to make sure their company "lean, mean, and profitable" by laying off people or pushing them to work for more hours and pay less under whatever reason. I'm not asking the leader of companies to pay younger generations more money, at least treat us decent, provide us with trainings (how many companies do give new grad/hire trainings these days?). While I don't mind with below average pay (just not too much), I would hope a bit of compensation in the form of trainings, advancements, bonuses (bigger than 3-5%), etc.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jdminhbg 16y ago
This is like a dispatch from Bizarro World. My parents' Carter-era mortgage was for 15%+, mine signed last year (well before my mid-30s!) was for 5.5%. The rest of my counterexperience is just anecdote, so I'll spare everyone the details and just ask: Do you have even a single shred of evidence backing up your nostalgia for things you didn't actually experience?
- pw0ncakes 16y ago
  Interest rates were high because there was an inflation problem in the 1970s. Also, house prices then would be considered a bargain by today's standards-- you could buy a middle-class house in Seattle or San Francisco for what would be about $200-250k today. I am certainly not saying that the 1960s and '70s were a perfect era. They were far from that. What I'm saying is that it wasn't nearly as difficult to advance. You had to seriously fuck up in order not to advance by default. College practically guaranteed a good job. People who slacked off in college during the '60s entered boardrooms in the '70s and '80s. That sort of access and opportunity isn't handed out to our generation; far from it. We face stiffer competition for (except at the very top) less reward, at least economically speaking.
  - jdminhbg 16y ago
    "Interest rates were high because there was an inflation problem in the 1970s." Of course they were, that's the point. That was the crappy economic situation that generation lived under; it was worse than today's, at least from a home-buying perspective. And again, you still don't have any actual evidence for your other idyllic depictions.
    - gaius 16y ago
      Well, yes and no. Inflation eroded their debts too remember. That's why there are so many Boomers living in nice houses that their kids could never afford at the same age.
      - pw0ncakes 16y ago
        Right. Inflation is far less vicious than house-price inflation for most people. It's bizarre that so many people have adopted the "rising house prices = good" mentality, since housing is something on which people naturally have a short position (a need). Renters are obviously short housing, single-home owners are theoretically neutral (they own housing equal to their need) but actually short as well, since they're paying real estate costs every time they shop. So 90+% of us are actually in a short position with regard to housing; our lives get better if real estate becomes cheaper. The important, high-value land is held by a few. This is why it's odd to hear people rage against inflation or rising gas prices but cheer on housing bubbles. They have the perception that rising energy prices benefit "other people" but that they somehow are making money when real estate gets expensive-- and unless they own a lot of it, this isn't true.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Alex63 16y ago
I think your perspective is biased towards considering post-WWII society as the norm. My perception is that the end of WWII marked a sudden change in most of the things you have called out (housing cost relative to income, job security, health care). It would be nice for all of us if the societal changes that occurred after WWII were permanent, but isn't it more realistic to think that WWII was a catastrophic event that pushed most systems out of equilibrium, and that we are now returning to a more "normal" state? I may not be expressing this correctly in economic terms, but my opinion is that the value of human labour has been declining since the industrial revolution, even though the quality of life (in most regards) has been improving. The information age only seems to be accelerating this process.
brg 16y ago
You are not making any sense, and seem to be too defensive. Where was "decent" healthcare system 40 years ago? Where was job security during the dust-bowl, depression, the beginnings of the industrial revolution?

hello_moto 16y ago

I somewhat agree with your statement while I can't explain what's going on in this world we live today. There are many CEO out there that read or listen advises on how to make sure their company "lean, mean, and profitable" by laying off people or pushing them to work for more hours and pay less under whatever reason. I'm not asking the leader of companies to pay younger generations more money, at least treat us decent, provide us with trainings (how many companies do give new grad/hire trainings these days?). While I don't mind with below average pay (just not too much), I would hope a bit of compensation in the form of trainings, advancements, bonuses (bigger than 3-5%), etc.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jdminhbg 16y ago

This is like a dispatch from Bizarro World. My parents' Carter-era mortgage was for 15%+, mine signed last year (well before my mid-30s!) was for 5.5%. The rest of my counterexperience is just anecdote, so I'll spare everyone the details and just ask: Do you have even a single shred of evidence backing up your nostalgia for things you didn't actually experience?

pw0ncakes 16y ago
Interest rates were high because there was an inflation problem in the 1970s. Also, house prices then would be considered a bargain by today's standards-- you could buy a middle-class house in Seattle or San Francisco for what would be about $200-250k today. I am certainly not saying that the 1960s and '70s were a perfect era. They were far from that. What I'm saying is that it wasn't nearly as difficult to advance. You had to seriously fuck up in order not to advance by default. College practically guaranteed a good job. People who slacked off in college during the '60s entered boardrooms in the '70s and '80s. That sort of access and opportunity isn't handed out to our generation; far from it. We face stiffer competition for (except at the very top) less reward, at least economically speaking.
- jdminhbg 16y ago
  "Interest rates were high because there was an inflation problem in the 1970s." Of course they were, that's the point. That was the crappy economic situation that generation lived under; it was worse than today's, at least from a home-buying perspective. And again, you still don't have any actual evidence for your other idyllic depictions.
  - gaius 16y ago
    Well, yes and no. Inflation eroded their debts too remember. That's why there are so many Boomers living in nice houses that their kids could never afford at the same age.
    - pw0ncakes 16y ago
      Right. Inflation is far less vicious than house-price inflation for most people. It's bizarre that so many people have adopted the "rising house prices = good" mentality, since housing is something on which people naturally have a short position (a need). Renters are obviously short housing, single-home owners are theoretically neutral (they own housing equal to their need) but actually short as well, since they're paying real estate costs every time they shop. So 90+% of us are actually in a short position with regard to housing; our lives get better if real estate becomes cheaper. The important, high-value land is held by a few. This is why it's odd to hear people rage against inflation or rising gas prices but cheer on housing bubbles. They have the perception that rising energy prices benefit "other people" but that they somehow are making money when real estate gets expensive-- and unless they own a lot of it, this isn't true.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Alex63 16y ago

I think your perspective is biased towards considering post-WWII society as the norm. My perception is that the end of WWII marked a sudden change in most of the things you have called out (housing cost relative to income, job security, health care). It would be nice for all of us if the societal changes that occurred after WWII were permanent, but isn't it more realistic to think that WWII was a catastrophic event that pushed most systems out of equilibrium, and that we are now returning to a more "normal" state? I may not be expressing this correctly in economic terms, but my opinion is that the value of human labour has been declining since the industrial revolution, even though the quality of life (in most regards) has been improving. The information age only seems to be accelerating this process.

brg 16y ago

You are not making any sense, and seem to be too defensive. Where was "decent" healthcare system 40 years ago? Where was job security during the dust-bowl, depression, the beginnings of the industrial revolution?