3 ms·

The entire premise of the article is that millenials are “special”. There is near-zero difference between what a millennial faces and what I faced in the last

The entire premise of the article is that millenials are “special”. There is near-zero difference between what a millennial faces and what I faced in the last “great depression” coming out of school in the early 1990s, post the 1988 crash. It took months or years to find a job, and you had to work your ass off when you found one to keep it. I had lots of debt. Boom and bust cycles are normal. Millenials are not special in being screwed by the timing of their birth.

ivraatiems 9y ago
> The entire premise of the articles is that millenials are “special”. No, the premise is that millennials are normal people born into a society whose risk/reward/choice incentives are completely out of wack, and who face massive and untenable inequality created by the generations that came before them. If we are special, it's only because the actions of previous generations have made us so. Nobody is saying anywhere that we view ourselves as better or superior to other generations - almost the opposite; we're the same, yet, uniquely disadvantaged. > Boom and bust cycles are normal. Millennials are not special in being screwed by the timing of their birth. Except the most recent cycle (the 2007 recession) exacerbated these problems, and ten years later, for working-class millennials there's been no recovery whatsoever. The economy has recovered, the rich are getting richer, nobody at the bottom is doing any better than they were. Why's that? > There is zero difference between what a millennial faces and what I faced in the last “great depression” coming out of school in the early 1990s, post the 1988 crash. Again - did you read the article? There's a clear difference and they explain it quite well. It's not just about the ordinary economic cycle; it's about the way incentives have been perverted and restructuring of our economy and all its various parts have shifted all wealth to the wealthy and all burdens to those who are not. If you think this is just about some people being upset that 2007 happened, you're missing the bigger point: 2007 happened, but was happening before, and is still happening, and the problems are bigger than just "the markets aren't doing well this year." What I'm trying to get across is that what you did was hard when you did it, and is now almost impossible. Why should it get harder? What's good about people suffering more, and longer, than you did? Why is the generation getting hurt the one to blame for being in trouble when we didn't create any of the problems or systems screwing us? This is a data-driven, economic-realities based argument. Coming back with "well, toughen up and deal with it" is unhelpful - the way we're dealing with it is by pushing strongly for change.
- tatersolid 9y ago
  I read the article and was completely unmoved. Again, I don’t think you realize this is the way the world works and has always worked. The young always bitch about being screwed over by their predecessors, bitch about income inequality, and wear T-shirts with the face of mass murderers like Che Guevara thinking they’re sticking it to “the man”. Then they finally realize they actually have to find their own way, which might be very different from what their parents did. And life moves on.
  - ivraatiems 9y ago
    It's not whether you were moved or not, it's whether you even acknowledge that what the article presented is fact. I keep citing evidence, from the piece and elsewhere, that the challenges facing millennials are unique, bigger than in previous generations, and potentially devastating for society (of all ages) long-term, and you just keep coming back with "that's how the world has always worked." You're starting with your conclusion, then going backwards, so to me your logic seems to go: 1) Things are working how they always work. 2) If someone tells you that things are working differently, that can't be true, because things are working the way they always work. 3) Therefore, evidence that this is not in fact the same as how things always work should be ignored. Can you please respond to the evidence I and the article are giving - massive and rising inequality, lack of wage growth, unprecedented encumbrance with debt, and restructuring of corporate interest and benefit systems - and explain how it's how things have always worked? > Then they finally realize they actually have to find their own way, which might be very different from what their parents did. And life moves on. Who is to say that "change the system so this doesn't keep happening" can't be the way millennials are finding?
    - tatersolid 9y ago
      > it's whether you even acknowledge that what the article presented is fact I do not accept the article as fact. Read the (very few, mostly on pull quote) references. They are cherry-picked stats, or from completely biased sources. Almost everything else in the article is completely un-cited. There are no dissenting viewpoints or statistics presented. It has no merit as a journalistic or academic work.

ivraatiems 9y ago

> The entire premise of the articles is that millenials are “special”. No, the premise is that millennials are normal people born into a society whose risk/reward/choice incentives are completely out of wack, and who face massive and untenable inequality created by the generations that came before them. If we are special, it's only because the actions of previous generations have made us so. Nobody is saying anywhere that we view ourselves as better or superior to other generations - almost the opposite; we're the same, yet, uniquely disadvantaged. > Boom and bust cycles are normal. Millennials are not special in being screwed by the timing of their birth. Except the most recent cycle (the 2007 recession) exacerbated these problems, and ten years later, for working-class millennials there's been no recovery whatsoever. The economy has recovered, the rich are getting richer, nobody at the bottom is doing any better than they were. Why's that? > There is zero difference between what a millennial faces and what I faced in the last “great depression” coming out of school in the early 1990s, post the 1988 crash. Again - did you read the article? There's a clear difference and they explain it quite well. It's not just about the ordinary economic cycle; it's about the way incentives have been perverted and restructuring of our economy and all its various parts have shifted all wealth to the wealthy and all burdens to those who are not. If you think this is just about some people being upset that 2007 happened, you're missing the bigger point: 2007 happened, but was happening before, and is still happening, and the problems are bigger than just "the markets aren't doing well this year." What I'm trying to get across is that what you did was hard when you did it, and is now almost impossible. Why should it get harder? What's good about people suffering more, and longer, than you did? Why is the generation getting hurt the one to blame for being in trouble when we didn't create any of the problems or systems screwing us? This is a data-driven, economic-realities based argument. Coming back with "well, toughen up and deal with it" is unhelpful - the way we're dealing with it is by pushing strongly for change.

tatersolid 9y ago
I read the article and was completely unmoved. Again, I don’t think you realize this is the way the world works and has always worked. The young always bitch about being screwed over by their predecessors, bitch about income inequality, and wear T-shirts with the face of mass murderers like Che Guevara thinking they’re sticking it to “the man”. Then they finally realize they actually have to find their own way, which might be very different from what their parents did. And life moves on.
- ivraatiems 9y ago
  It's not whether you were moved or not, it's whether you even acknowledge that what the article presented is fact. I keep citing evidence, from the piece and elsewhere, that the challenges facing millennials are unique, bigger than in previous generations, and potentially devastating for society (of all ages) long-term, and you just keep coming back with "that's how the world has always worked." You're starting with your conclusion, then going backwards, so to me your logic seems to go: 1) Things are working how they always work. 2) If someone tells you that things are working differently, that can't be true, because things are working the way they always work. 3) Therefore, evidence that this is not in fact the same as how things always work should be ignored. Can you please respond to the evidence I and the article are giving - massive and rising inequality, lack of wage growth, unprecedented encumbrance with debt, and restructuring of corporate interest and benefit systems - and explain how it's how things have always worked? > Then they finally realize they actually have to find their own way, which might be very different from what their parents did. And life moves on. Who is to say that "change the system so this doesn't keep happening" can't be the way millennials are finding?
  - tatersolid 9y ago
    > it's whether you even acknowledge that what the article presented is fact I do not accept the article as fact. Read the (very few, mostly on pull quote) references. They are cherry-picked stats, or from completely biased sources. Almost everything else in the article is completely un-cited. There are no dissenting viewpoints or statistics presented. It has no merit as a journalistic or academic work.