3 ms·

Bosses Want Hard Workers–So They’re Hiring Older People

9 points by stefap2 4y ago

stefap2 4y ago
https://archive.ph/yiQBm https://archive.ph/yiQBm
donmcronald 4y ago
It’s not surprising that attitudes are different. On average… The generation before me got rewarded for hard work and could build a good life. Of course they value hard work. It’s what helped them succeed. The generation after me is never going to own anything. Their standard of living is going to be worse than previous generations and they’re going to be totally disenfranchised by the time they hit retirement age. Is it shocking that young people don’t want to participate in a system where they do all the work and get none of the benefit?
- sharemywin 4y ago
  not to mention way more informed on how things really work.
  - donmcronald 4y ago
    Yes. Charlie Munger says everyone should be happy they’re 3x better off than people were 100 years ago, but that ignores that productivity has (I think) increased by about 20x in that time. We should be 20x better off and most people are starting to realize the wealthy are taking far more than their fair share. The possibility of the average standard of living decreasing for upcoming generations is unconscionable.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  > The generation before me got rewarded for hard work and could build a good life. Of course they value hard work... A very appealing narrative - though I suspect that it overlooks a huge number of old and poor folks, who never saw much "good life". And for those who did - owning a sub-1000 sq. ft. house on a small city lot, plus one car, often cleared their "good life" bar. Nothing remotely resembling today's "drive one of your nice SUV's from your McMansion to yet another spiffy restaurant" standards. My own generation grew up on all-to-real stories of the Great Depression - when "build a good life" looked like a complete fantasy to much of America, and "reward for hard work" was often painfully close to "didn't go to bed hungry today".
  - donmcronald 4y ago
    Yes, expectations were lower and success wasn’t a guarantee, but, on average, I think people had a better chance of having a good life as far as them and their peers were concerned. > And for those who did - owning a sub-1000 sq. ft. house on a small city lot, plus one car, often cleared their "good life" bar. I think a lot of younger people would be ecstatic if they thought that was a possibility. The future is <1000 sq. ft. multigenerational (or roommate filled) apartments that will never be owned or windowless 300 sq. ft. dorm-like spaces if you’re lucky enough to be able to afford something for 1 person. Car ownership is going to disappear for everyone that isn’t in the upper middle class.

9 points by stefap2 4y ago

https://archive.ph/yiQBm https://archive.ph/yiQBm

It’s not surprising that attitudes are different. On average… The generation before me got rewarded for hard work and could build a good life. Of course they value hard work. It’s what helped them succeed. The generation after me is never going to own anything. Their standard of living is going to be worse than previous generations and they’re going to be totally disenfranchised by the time they hit retirement age. Is it shocking that young people don’t want to participate in a system where they do all the work and get none of the benefit?

sharemywin 4y ago
not to mention way more informed on how things really work.
- donmcronald 4y ago
  Yes. Charlie Munger says everyone should be happy they’re 3x better off than people were 100 years ago, but that ignores that productivity has (I think) increased by about 20x in that time. We should be 20x better off and most people are starting to realize the wealthy are taking far more than their fair share. The possibility of the average standard of living decreasing for upcoming generations is unconscionable.
bell-cot 4y ago
> The generation before me got rewarded for hard work and could build a good life. Of course they value hard work... A very appealing narrative - though I suspect that it overlooks a huge number of old and poor folks, who never saw much "good life". And for those who did - owning a sub-1000 sq. ft. house on a small city lot, plus one car, often cleared their "good life" bar. Nothing remotely resembling today's "drive one of your nice SUV's from your McMansion to yet another spiffy restaurant" standards. My own generation grew up on all-to-real stories of the Great Depression - when "build a good life" looked like a complete fantasy to much of America, and "reward for hard work" was often painfully close to "didn't go to bed hungry today".
- donmcronald 4y ago
  Yes, expectations were lower and success wasn’t a guarantee, but, on average, I think people had a better chance of having a good life as far as them and their peers were concerned. > And for those who did - owning a sub-1000 sq. ft. house on a small city lot, plus one car, often cleared their "good life" bar. I think a lot of younger people would be ecstatic if they thought that was a possibility. The future is <1000 sq. ft. multigenerational (or roommate filled) apartments that will never be owned or windowless 300 sq. ft. dorm-like spaces if you’re lucky enough to be able to afford something for 1 person. Car ownership is going to disappear for everyone that isn’t in the upper middle class.