clutch.mtv.com— Millennials reading this from the warmth of a parents' home will nod sadly at the disheartening facts and figures in this infographic.
Feb 13, 2012View in Crawl 4
FTA : "Another study shows employers cannot expect much loyalty in return."
Given that many employers show no loyalty towards their employees, it seems only fair. How many millennials have seen their parents let go from companies after years of loyal service due to outsourcing, offshoring or downsizing? Why should they feel any loyalty to a company when they can see that they can be discarded at any time in favor of someone cheaper?
Unfortunately, legislation passed during the Reagan years largely eliminated corporate pension plans. Individual retirement plans based on 401Ks and similar programs are largely the product of the last 20 years. A series of laws were passed under Reagan in 1980, 1982 and 1987 that gave a big boost to 401Ks. At the same time under Reagan, a corporate offensive was launched to break up and dismantle Defined Benefit pension plans. Today's retirees depend on 401k's and IRA's - which have been decimated by bursting economic bubbles.
i love how they say that people would renege on a job if a better one came along. who wouldnt? if you got a job a McDonald's but then were offered a job paying $4 more would you keep the job at McDonald's? no you would want the better job that pays more and offers more in return.
You seriously have to be a complete sucker to be loyal to a corporation. Corporations use people up and discard them to help make assh**es like Romney richer.
vsamcluster wrote: "Why should they feel any loyalty to a company when they can see that they can be discarded at any time in favor of someone cheaper?"
Exactly. Its like some of my marine buddies in the middle East who forced to pull multiple tours of duty back-to-back when they were only supposed to serve one (two at the most).
Or automotive workers who worked at a plant for 10, or 15, or even 20 years of faithful service until they showed up one morning and saw a pink slip waiting for them pretty much saying "thanks for your time now f**k off!"
But to hear the 1% and their supporters tell it all these people are just lazy bums who need to get up off their asses and stop leeching off society.
* I have met people of all ages with over inflated egos. I have met people in their 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's who have regrets about their major.
* The lack of loyalty to a company may not be a bad thing if you look at history of people who believed they would have their jobs until retirement but then the company lays off everyone and moves.
* Why is the desire for having a work life balance is a bad thing? This is not an excuse for those who want to underwork - but don't confuse the desire to work 40 hours instead of 60 a week a sign of laziness.
“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”
― Socrates
It's a complaint as old as time. If you find yourself complaining about "kids today", then you're probably just old and confused.
... I think it's fake. I'm not an expert on such things but didn't people go to Socrates for learning because there weren't really any schools then? Which means, why the "tyrannize their teachers" thing? I mean it's true but I don't think it's a Socrates.
Socrates LEFT no writing himself...all info on or supposedly by him came from his student Plato others..sometimes much later.
I am very curious if this quote is several thousand years old or not: if so it does not matter who said it.
Just know that folks complained about the upbeat piano rhythms of the late 1890's as morally degenerating!
Your desire for having a "work life balance" is not a bad thing. The problem is that many people have a desire for high income and easy working conditions. It's not laziness -- it's unrealistic expectations that you can have an easy life and high income.
Or to put it another way -- I have two people I can promote. Employee A is a go-getter that busts his ass, because he wants to be climb the ladder. Employee B is dedicated to showing up, doing his job and getting the hell out. Who am I going to reward? Nothing wrong with being Employee B -- the guy does his job. But I'm going to pick the ass buster, because he deserves it. And then Employee B whines that even though he does his job adequately, he's not going anywhere.
Nothing wrong with wanting to be Employee B. But understand you're not going to be picked to go anywhere.
LIFE IS HARD. The problem is that too many young people have never experienced real hardship. They think if they can't afford a smartphone, then life has never sucked more for anyone at any time in history. There is no right to an easy life. Life often really sucks, and then you work harder to not starve.
You can bust your ass in 40 hours a week and take your time in 50. Promotion *should* be based on those who will excel at the promoted position, and that would probably not be someone who is just adequate at their current position.
But again, I have seen the "whiny" person with people of all ages. One of the differences is that as you get older you get to use the excuse of "I have worked 20 years in this field".
For young people coming out of a stable household, they probably will not have had to experience true hardship resulting in a skewed view of the workplace. But, you can say that too about driving, or marriage, or even sex.
No one claims that there aren't whiny people of all ages. But it does seem like we have a generation especially ill-prepared for the realities of life. They expect to graduate college and immediate slide into a cushy job where they can get a high salary with extensive time off for their "personal fulfillment".
I think that in the past, most people knew that the base state of life is that it sucks, and if you don't want it to suck, you have to work your ass off, and sometimes it will still suck. But it will suck less.
Too many people these days think the base state of life is that everyone takes care of you (either their employer or the government), and if you show up at your job, life goes from good to rockin' great, and life only sucks for people when someone else makes life suck for those people (e.g., the government or their employer). And that is totally wrong... life sucks because they haven't done anything to make it not suck.
Look at the original poster -- not to pick on him, but it's a typical attitude. "What's wrong with having a work / life balance?" Nothing at all -- but that's something that's earned. You are not entitled to it. Life sucks until you EARN life not sucking. It's not up to bosses, taxpayers or anyone else to hand you an easy life.
Those who work the hardest and are the most qualified should be the ones that get promoted. I would much prefer to work under someone who has earned to their position through hard work because I feel it means they will have an appreciation for the hard work I do, hopefully.
Just don't mix up "work life balance" with a high income and easy working conditions. And I know you (the poster) aren't, but I think a lot of folks do. It is possible to work hard, earn a very good income and enjoy a good balance of work and life outside of work.
As much as I can't stand the whiney hipster trophies for everyone generation this article demonstrates how employers are trying to saddle them with their own problems. More and more employers are looking for new hires to have obscure skills that could be easily trained with any effort for someone who has had the discipline to obtain any type of degree, but hardly any employers make the effort to train anymore. This is a scheme for employers to throw up their hands and say that they can't find any skilled workers in this country so that they can hire for slave wages outside it who current employees are expected to train and pick up the slack for at their own expense.
It’s true that the "jobless" creators aren't helping. They don't want to train anyone and feel zero responsibility to the city and community where we operate. Although, they’ll gladly take state and city tax breaks as an incentive to stay and not uproot elsewhere, aka corporate welfare extortion. Your last sentence is so true that it's not even funny.
In Arizona, tech company employers are limiting your career potential possibilities. They want new hires to have 2-3 years of experience, they're using the old stand-by BS line of "we can't find people with the skills we need", and they're saying they're unaware of "either university or workforce development programs that could help them find employees.". Last time I checked, most colleges and universities have industry career centric degree programs and job placement assistance departments.
Now, a 15-month study done by ASU's W.P. Carey School of Business and The AZ Tech Council debunks and calls BS on the tired excuse of "we can't find people with the skills we need". In fact, rather than a shortage people in AZ with "skills they need", the study found there's an abundance of new and existing grads available for hire. In short, the "jobless" creators are lying and they don't want to train new hires. They want something for nothing, "zero down / zero investment" employees.
Hiring difficult for high-tech firms
By J. Craig Anderson - Dec. 6, 2011 05:50 PM
The Arizona Republic
Thanks for the info...."They want something for nothing, "zero down / zero investment" employees." is so true.
It extends to other fields. In South Lake Tahoe the city and ski area built an expensive tram surrounded by one of the new hotel/condo/retail complexes so many ski areas have built. The rents were very high right from the start and even though they have never had full occupancy and many businesses have come and gone: the rents stay high.
Its the Enron effect: I worked hard, I gambled, and I'm gonna make damn sure I get paid well whether the plan was successful or not.
The real problem: Unrealistic employer expectations that look at employee training as a short term cost loss instead of a long term cost investment benefit.
Being a part of this generation, I know most people who are a part of it have an elitist attitude. They refuse to do blue collar work and have an entitlement mentality. Some would rather live in terrible conditions in the OWS movement for months at a time than look for a job.
You know most people who are a part of it? You must be one connected sunovabitch!
As long as we're all making sweeping, unsubstantiated generalizations, I'll keep the ball rolling: people who claim to know a group of tens of millions of people well enough to judge them all in a single post are all child-raping fascist psychopaths. Did I nail ya?
Totally got me there buddy. Im sitting in my padded room right now.
If I had to try a profile on you I would say you are probably one of the idiots who majored in Sanskrit or poetry and are scratching your head trying to figure out why you don't have a job. Since you are tired of sitting in Mommy's basement, you went out to OWS and started a drum circle.
I can tell you one thing for certain: The millenial generation has less work ethic than the generations before it. You don't have to look much further than what people watch on TV these days. Kardashians, Jersey Shore etc. Who the hell cares about these people? Who are they? People watch these shows and it is absolutely dumbing down this generation. It used to be to get famous or reach the top you had to actually work hard. Today you post a clip on youtube and become an instant success. It's like society doesn't reward hard work anymore, it only cares about gimicks and the like.
The other thing killing this generation is lack of responsibility. Before this century, if you were a bad student, you were simply labeled as a bad student. Today people need a reason, they are "classified" with ADD and told they aren't lazy, they have a disease that makes them lazy.
I have heard so many stories from people in the older generations where they started working at 12 at the bottom of the totem pole and worked their way up during their lives. You just don't hear that kind of stuff anymore, wouldn't you agree?
If you would like to have an intelligent discussion about this matter please go ahead. Though I have a feeling you are one of the people who cares more about pointing out supposed flaws in my arguments rather than presenting some of your own.
Nor willing to take responsibility for their own failures as parents and leaders of the next generation...and that's been true for a couple of cycles.
The kids in the Sixties might have been naive, exitable, irresponsible @ times, etc...but the s**tty racism, sexism, war mongering, police brutality justifying enfused parents then deserved what they got.
The graphic claims that Millenials are largely unemployed, but yet it says that 83.3% are employed. That is misleading.
Also, notice the trends in majors. Millenials have flocked to majors that have higher unemployment rates. Is that hard to believe that those who major in Visual Arts, Humanities, Liberal Arts, etc are more unemployed than those who don't? According to the chart, education has seen the least growth in majors, yet has the 2nd best unemployment.
Success is not about luck, it's about making smart decisions and working hard.
Majoring in physical fitness is the dumbest thing in the world. If you pay tens of thousands of dollars of tuition for that, you're a moron. I'm pretty sure 99% of olympic gold medalists didn't get a college degree in physical fitness--they were too busy actually becoming physically fit.
Colleges have become degree farms, willing to sell an "accredited" degree to anyone stupid enough to pay for it, regardless of whether or not that degree is worth anything. Here's an idea: maybe part of the accreditation process should be determining whether or not there really is any value in the degree. I don't care how legitimate your curriculum is, some degrees will never pay back the tuition, making them a complete waste of time.
M'eh, They didn't prove any change, just made the same story fit another generation.
I don't see how this is any different that it was 20 or 30 years ago.
Arts degrees still had trouble finding jobs related to their degree back then, and even engineering graduates were having trouble finding placements in '85-'86.
It's too bad they couldn't find statistics based on consistent qualifications. Let's draw conclusions about 18-29 year-olds by looking at numbers of people under 25. Then we can present some data about what Millennials are looking for without showing any control data, and then make a judgment call about what that data means!
It's science!
They all got trophies no matter how bad they sucked at soccer, baseball, badminton, whatever. they were given daily shots of self esteem and
As a result of Helicopter mom coddling and a completely unrealistic concept of loyalty, hard work, service to others and competition they have expectations that seem absolutely bizarre to hiring managers. It is an epidemic of narcissism that manifests itself in lack of empathy and the inability to form relationships (and no, a facebook friend is not a real friendship)
It's like we live in a protracted world of Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon, where everyone is above average, or at least they have been sold that bill of goods.
Now obviously not ALL people in the category we call 'millennials' fit that stereotype but the ones who do make it miserable for the rest.
btw, I am Gen-X and we had our own set of 'failure to launch' issues.
A few hard knocks from the real world will reset the ego button for most.
No doubt the millennial generation has its slackers and degenerates but many in the cohort have been saddled with an outrageous and burdensome amount of student loan debt as well as an unfavorable job market.
Most 17 or 18 year olds have no concept of what $120,000 of debt really looks like. A lot of them turn to their parents who think "My kid MUST go to college" and their school guidance counselors and teachers who also push Higher Education. Our society is built on a promise that if young people go to college and achieve marginal to decent grades, they will be at least moderately successful. They are told that without a college degree their only job prospects are working at the gas station on the corner or the McDonalds down the street.
And the real sad fact of the matter is, that's the damn truth.
"Most 17 or 18 year olds have no concept of what $120,000 of debt really looks like. "
ignorance isn't an excuse when they sign a legal contract. also, if they are going 120,000 into debt for school, they are doing it wrong.
there are good state schools that cost significantly less than that for 4 years, and if people go to community college for 2 years and then go to a 4 year school for the remainder of their college duration, they will save even more.
"college is expensive" isn't an excuse for lack of planning and foresight.
"there are good state schools that cost significantly less than that for 4 years, and if people go to community college for 2 years and then go to a 4 year school for the remainder of their college duration, they will save even more."
I work at a very good state school and I can tell you that your statement just isn't held up by the statistics, this is the sort of thing that Governor's love to boast about but is absolutely untrue when it comes to enrollment figures.
"college is expensive" isn't an excuse for lack of planning and foresight.
Please explain to us what sort of planning and foresight someone has available to them at age 17? Because as far as I know most people spend most of the those years as a child. And if you want to throw that back at the parents for failing to do that for their own child, that would, I think, account for all that debt some students are required to take on when they do end up in college. And sure, there is also the argument about saving and waiting to go to college, but if you are one of those people without a college degree and the least amount of work experience (since you are, remember now only 17 years old here) you are going to be among some of the lowest full-time wage earners in the country. So the amount of disposable income you have to re-allocate to an account for "saving for college" is going to be next to zilch.
I'm not advocating that prospective students take on gargantuan amounts of debt. However your willingness to merely dismiss something with a simple wave of your hand without weighing all of the societal factors is, well in your own words, ignorant.
i go to a state school here in massachusetts, and it is roughly half of your stated $120,000 of debt figure. also, you completely dismissed my point about going to a community college to get generic english/math requirements out of the way and then transferring to a 4 year school for the last 2 years.
regardless of age, if someone is signing their name to a large debt, it is THEIR responsibility to acknowledge that it is a large debt and decide if an alternative school would be a better decision.
if someone goes to a 30k/year private school instead of a 15k/year state school, that is on them when they graduate and they have twice as much debt.
I think you are missing the point. Or not reading my entire posts. I never said that debt wasn't their (or yours, or mine - when it comes to our student loans) responsibility.
And I did respond to your statement. I am sorry I was not more clear. You are under the very common misconception that a lot of students do their general ed requirements at cheaper two year schools and transfer to four year schools as a cost saving strategy. I am telling you as someone who actually reads reports on these numbers because he works at a state school, that this just isn't true. Sure, some students do end up doing that, but the number is actually quite low. Look it up.
Depending on which state you grow up in (and we are especially screwed here in New England), a good state school (in state) can run you 10,000 a year MINIMUM for just the tuition. That doesn't include room/board, books, and other associated fees. A "good" education can easily cost you 20,000-30,000 a year as a full-time, in-state, residential college student. An out-of-state student, full-time, residential student can easily run 30,000-40,000 or more.
You could be going to Cape Cod Community College for all I know. Or you could be going to FSU or you could be going to UMass Amherst, which coincidentally costs over 22,000 a year for in-state and almost 35,000 for out-of-state. But the cost is there. And a lot of those degrees, the responsible ones that people keep going on about, those degrees are often only offered at large research institutes. It doesn't cost anywhere near as much to have Arts and Sciences / Liberal Arts programs like English or History or even a BA (not BS) in Mathematics or Computer Science, as it does to have a research based computer or biological science or engineering programs. So yeah, you are gonna pay through the nose to get one of those degrees.
I absolutely, completely agree with you that each individual is responsible for managing their debt, but there is also a very good reason why so many people get stuck with it.
"You are under the very common misconception that a lot of students do their general ed requirements at cheaper two year schools and transfer to four year schools as a cost saving strategy. I am telling you as someone who actually reads reports on these numbers because he works at a state school, that this just isn't true."
actually, i never said most people do this. i said that anyone who wants to do this can, and as a result cut their education expenses almost in half. it seems ridiculous to say this generation is getting screwed by expensive education costs when they are willingly paying much more than they have to.
to put this perfectly bluntly, i'm not saying most people do go to community college before going to a 4 year school, but i am saying that option is AVAILABLE to everyone, and if they don't utilize it, they don't have a leg to stand on when criticizing the cost of education.
"A 'good' education can easily cost you 20,000-30,000 a year as a full-time, in-state, residential college student"
and as a commuting college student, that figure comes much closer to the 10-15/year
"I absolutely, completely agree with you that each individual is responsible for managing their debt, but there is also a very good reason why so many people get stuck with it."
like i said, many cases of people being stuck with large debts are because they weren't being responsible when they created it. its like if someone could afford to get a $10,000 car, and got a $10,000 car but added $20,000 worth of options bringing the total well beyond what they were willing to go into debt for.
"You could be going to Cape Cod Community College for all I know. Or you could be going to FSU or you could be going to UMass Amherst"
I went back and read you prior comment, you're right, you didn't, I definitely misread it. And it is a viable option, frankly it is surprising that with the rising costs of college that more students aren't going this route.
I don't completely agree with you that individuals don't have a leg to stand on when criticizing the cost of education and the debt associated with it. Everyone comes from a different situation and sure, there are plenty of people who tack on those extra features like heated seats too.
I think the biggest problem right now is that kids hedge their debt against what they perceive will be their future earnings.
Do the parents not understand the concept of borrowing money either?
I disagree with your assertion that you cannot get a decent job without a college degree. A good trade school for a fraction of the price will get a kid into a very high demand job as an A&P technician or a CNC machinist.
I also see no issues working at McDonalds or the Gas station if push comes to shove. It is a great way to help prevent student loans and there could be room for advancement and a decent wage if you stick with it.
I think the big part of the problem is our kids no longer look at life through the lens of "entry level" or view minimum wage as "an opportunity".
I think that just introduces the very same problem. The current issue is we have more college graduates than jobs that require those qualifications. If you start telling everyone to go to trade school you'll end up with a lot of highly skilled, but unemployed trades people. What might work for an individual isn't a solution to a systemic problem in our economy.
I don't have anything against people working at McDonalds or the gas station. I disagree, partially at least, with your statement that it is a decent wage. It might be that in some parts of the country - but there are plenty of places where even a full-time job at above minimum wage is barely enough to sustain a single individual.
You are on to something about the lens kids see things through. But they are only partially to blame. Everything out there has been telling them that a college degree is the thing they need and that they'll earn X millions of dollars more over their career as a wage earner. A lot of colleges even have this stuff in their marketing materials, even though a lot of studies show now that while there are gains to be made, it is nowhere near as great as is advertised. And in some cases, isn't worth all the extra debt college loans will bring or the 3.5-5 years of lost wage earning potential.
A high-paying job was promised to me when I took out my student loans with almost as much certainty as getting a house for a mortgage. It's customary to have a home inspection done before you purchase a house, but there's no equivalent with school, even though the costs can be comparable.
From the day I was born, by every adult figure in my life, force feeding me the line "Get a college degree or spend the rest of your life flipping burgers." It's as close to holding the metaphorical gun to our generation's head as you can get. I don't regret my education, but I regret the 6 figures that my wife and I combined will end up paying over our lifetimes for something most people in the industrialized world get for free.
Yes, it's true that the economy is pretty bad now. However, most "Millenials" appear to be a bunch of whiny bitches.
The world isn't a lush valley of gumdrops. It's no longer a world of hot, barely-legal sex, with buckets of fast cash falling from the heavens like a sweet, sweet golden shower of financial success. The world is cold, and dark. They need to man up, and realize that.
Not losers. A lot of the kids I see from the millenial generation are extremely bright and talented. The problem is they do not know hard times and we have not prepared them for the world.
We grew up in the 80s and 90s. We watched a world shed the Cold War, embracing peace and cooperation. We watched the economy boom, lifting everyone up--we even saw a balanced budget. We watched the birth of the most amazing and revolution communications infrastructure ever, promising to usher in a new era of human understanding and possibility.
Then, just as we became adults, the 21st century happened.
We watched our leaders, all members of older generations, throw away peace and embrace a new era of fear, conquest, and endless war. We watched the economy fall apart, and to date it hasn't recovered. We watched politics become finally and irrevocably polarized; we may well have seen the last functional U.S. government ever. We watched as our last, best hope, the oh-so-holy Internet, got raped to death by corporate concerns about piracy, and governmental incursions into privacy (not to mention our trusted corporate friends selling our private details for profit).
You're talking about a generation who started paying for college just when the economy fell apart, and entered the workforce either during the Bush recession, or the current, much worse one. You're talking about people raised by a generation who threw away everything their parents taught them in the 50s and 60s so they could embrace "love and peace, man", then when they started getting old, suddenly became Fox-News-watching arch-conservatives, who think the biggest problem with this country is all the money we who are still in the workforce are putting into *their* social security and medicare that they're going to need for the rest of their lives, since none of them actually saved anything for retirement. By the time we Millennials are finally stable, our parents will be destitute, totally dependent on us, since they were so busy voting against their own interests and making fun of our foolish, idealistic ways (you know...believing in the things THEY thought were so cool in the 60s).
You're talking about a generation that was raised by single mothers and fathers, in an era when divorce exploded into popularity. A generation so turned off by the idea of marriage and childrearing that we're in real danger of a true Idiocracy situation, with all the best and brightest foreswearing building a family of their own, leaving it to the rest. This is to say nothing, of course, of how foolish it would be to have children when you can't even feed yourself, let alone save for a college tuition that will be five times the already hyperinflated rates of today by the time the little tyke is all grown up (and probably just as useless).
I don't speak for myself. There are always exceptions to every generalization. I'm proud of my modest success, and I would recommend my ways to other millennials looking to have their own. But I understand the plight of those that don't. I don't feel any need to look down on those not as "wise" (read: lucky) as me. I think, like those crazy hippies of yesteryear, who seem to have forgotten this themselves, that we could all do with a bit more understanding and empathy...in *addition* to a wise, practical approach to life in a capitalist democracy.
I don't mean to belittle the OP; in fact, I agree wholeheartedly with the above comment. This isn't a direct response. It's a manifesto. It's not an excuse. It's a story. Our story. The story of the first generation to come of age in the 21st century, in the new millennium, and of the extreme, almost melodramatic contrast between reality as it was presented to us as children, and reality as it is now, as it was then, as it always will be.
If we have a sense of entitlement, it came from being constantly told "you can do anything if you put your mind to it!". It came from never being able to fail. It came from having to wear a helmet everywhere. It came from being raised by weirdo hippies who thought we were going to be starbabies or something. It came from the fermented hopes and dreams of a generation who saw the benefit of revolutionary change in their own times, and thought we would further their goals, forgetting the very nature of rebellion. It came from high school teachers and counselors who had nothing practical to say about the value of a poorly-chosen college degree. It came from the politicians on TV saying that all you have to do is vote for their guy, and all your dreams and wishes will come true. It came from children's shows that told us that bigotry is dead, everyone loves everyone, and there are no problems in the world. It came from centuries of American exceptionalism that irresponsibly and pointlessly assumed that each generation would outdo the last, without any thought to how that would practically be achieved.
Every child learns from someone. Nobody plucks their values from the ether. I'm sure the most selfish, entitled young adult has learned enough hard lessons in the last 12 years that he doesn't need continued belittling and abuse from his "wise" elders.
Let's just accept one another and stop using age brackets as some sort of f**king status symbol.
I never used age brackets as any sort of status symbol. In fact, a lot of the problems your generation have suffered from are caused by the greed of previous generations. You should also note that I think that the millenials are extremely bright and talented. Don't get your panties in a wad.
What I meant was anybody born after 1945 has not known "truly" hard times. We have never had to eat lard and biscuits to prevent starvation, been on the recieving end of soup kitchens, or had to bath only once a week.
Sadly, this is what is coming thanks to the unmitigated greed and wild spending that has occurred since the 1950's. The millenials (my two children) are going to be the ones stuck with this bill and I don't believe we have prepared you for the rough times to come.
Some great points...REALLY GREAT opening paragraphs summing up what is not said by the George Wills and such.
Most young folks in the 60's and 70's were not hippies. Love and Peace was still a minority ideal among most youth.
The self esteem and helmets all the time is a pretty recent development. As for the politicians...they've always been saying s**t. But parents refusing to admit their kids might need some help does factor in..."Don't tell me about my kid" is a common complaint teachers have heard for awhile..from poor to rich.
Also..we forget the MASSIVE influence marketers have on our lives "You deserve a break today" and such has been around for a long time. Many kids in many fast emerging economies are very bratty: I have seen both China and Thailand. There;s something about the New Rich....
We should also factor in the what effect seeing thieves and even murderers kept from jail just because they were rich or protected by corporate law...along with the obscene paydays the 1% have been rewarding themselves while wages stagnate, prices rise, and good jobs disappear.
This is the kind of claptrap that tells younger people that they shouldn't even bother trying, because they are already destined to fail. And so they won't. And when things therefore don't get better, they will blame it on everyone else but themselves.
The only way that the mistakes of previous generations will be solved is if those able to do so stop pointing fingers, roll up their damn sleeves, and make it happen. If the "millennials" want a better world, then they are going to have to work to make it happen.
You're probably right --- after a lifetime of sponging off mommy and daddy, work changing diapers in a retirement home is about all they'll be qualified for and probably won't do a competent job at that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Did you look at the charts? In every single category their unemployment is far higher than the average. They are not getting hired even with a good education.
MPP Global Solutions are the leading provider of Payment Gateways and eCommerce Solutions to the Media and Entertainment Industries.http://www.mppglobal.com/
![Confirmed: Millennials Are Screwed [Infographic]](http://cdn3.diggstatic.com/story/confirmed_millennials_are_screwed_infographic/t.png)
vsamclusterFeb 14, 2012
FTA : "Another study shows employers cannot expect much loyalty in return."
Given that many employers show no loyalty towards their employees, it seems only fair. How many millennials have seen their parents let go from companies after years of loyal service due to outsourcing, offshoring or downsizing? Why should they feel any loyalty to a company when they can see that they can be discarded at any time in favor of someone cheaper?
miklkitFeb 14, 2012
Not to mention watching their parent's retirement fund being cleaned out to boot.
Corporate America shows no loyalty and gets none back in return.
jimfeetFeb 14, 2012
Unfortunately, legislation passed during the Reagan years largely eliminated corporate pension plans. Individual retirement plans based on 401Ks and similar programs are largely the product of the last 20 years. A series of laws were passed under Reagan in 1980, 1982 and 1987 that gave a big boost to 401Ks. At the same time under Reagan, a corporate offensive was launched to break up and dismantle Defined Benefit pension plans. Today's retirees depend on 401k's and IRA's - which have been decimated by bursting economic bubbles.
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
i love how they say that people would renege on a job if a better one came along. who wouldnt? if you got a job a McDonald's but then were offered a job paying $4 more would you keep the job at McDonald's? no you would want the better job that pays more and offers more in return.
cowicideFeb 15, 2012
You seriously have to be a complete sucker to be loyal to a corporation. Corporations use people up and discard them to help make assh**es like Romney richer.
clitniblr036Feb 15, 2012
vsamcluster wrote: "Why should they feel any loyalty to a company when they can see that they can be discarded at any time in favor of someone cheaper?"
Exactly. Its like some of my marine buddies in the middle East who forced to pull multiple tours of duty back-to-back when they were only supposed to serve one (two at the most).
Or automotive workers who worked at a plant for 10, or 15, or even 20 years of faithful service until they showed up one morning and saw a pink slip waiting for them pretty much saying "thanks for your time now f**k off!"
But to hear the 1% and their supporters tell it all these people are just lazy bums who need to get up off their asses and stop leeching off society.
maestrohFeb 15, 2012
I was loyal to my company for years... right up until they sent my job to china.
moronicbajebusFeb 14, 2012
Why is there so much hate towards younger people?
* I have met people of all ages with over inflated egos. I have met people in their 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's who have regrets about their major.
* The lack of loyalty to a company may not be a bad thing if you look at history of people who believed they would have their jobs until retirement but then the company lays off everyone and moves.
* Why is the desire for having a work life balance is a bad thing? This is not an excuse for those who want to underwork - but don't confuse the desire to work 40 hours instead of 60 a week a sign of laziness.
angrychadFeb 14, 2012
“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”
― Socrates
It's a complaint as old as time. If you find yourself complaining about "kids today", then you're probably just old and confused.
caseycooldFeb 14, 2012
I love that quote! Exceeeeeept it's fake, fyi.
angrychadFeb 14, 2012
Inconclusive, actually ;)
extremephobiaFeb 15, 2012
... I think it's fake. I'm not an expert on such things but didn't people go to Socrates for learning because there weren't really any schools then? Which means, why the "tyrannize their teachers" thing? I mean it's true but I don't think it's a Socrates.
mekongkayakFeb 18, 2012
Socrates LEFT no writing himself...all info on or supposedly by him came from his student Plato others..sometimes much later.
I am very curious if this quote is several thousand years old or not: if so it does not matter who said it.
Just know that folks complained about the upbeat piano rhythms of the late 1890's as morally degenerating!
gaph3rFeb 14, 2012
Exactly. A lot of companies stopped being loyal to their employees long before the Millennial generation joined the work force.
jqp123Feb 14, 2012
"Why is the desire for having a work life balance is a bad thing?"
Because without work ... and income, there won't be much "life" to worry about balancing.
Don't confuse living with your parents as real "life" --- it's the life of a sponge which bears no resemblance to reality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nairebisFeb 14, 2012
Your desire for having a "work life balance" is not a bad thing. The problem is that many people have a desire for high income and easy working conditions. It's not laziness -- it's unrealistic expectations that you can have an easy life and high income.
Or to put it another way -- I have two people I can promote. Employee A is a go-getter that busts his ass, because he wants to be climb the ladder. Employee B is dedicated to showing up, doing his job and getting the hell out. Who am I going to reward? Nothing wrong with being Employee B -- the guy does his job. But I'm going to pick the ass buster, because he deserves it. And then Employee B whines that even though he does his job adequately, he's not going anywhere.
Nothing wrong with wanting to be Employee B. But understand you're not going to be picked to go anywhere.
LIFE IS HARD. The problem is that too many young people have never experienced real hardship. They think if they can't afford a smartphone, then life has never sucked more for anyone at any time in history. There is no right to an easy life. Life often really sucks, and then you work harder to not starve.
moronicbajebusFeb 14, 2012
You can bust your ass in 40 hours a week and take your time in 50. Promotion *should* be based on those who will excel at the promoted position, and that would probably not be someone who is just adequate at their current position.
But again, I have seen the "whiny" person with people of all ages. One of the differences is that as you get older you get to use the excuse of "I have worked 20 years in this field".
For young people coming out of a stable household, they probably will not have had to experience true hardship resulting in a skewed view of the workplace. But, you can say that too about driving, or marriage, or even sex.
nairebisFeb 14, 2012
No one claims that there aren't whiny people of all ages. But it does seem like we have a generation especially ill-prepared for the realities of life. They expect to graduate college and immediate slide into a cushy job where they can get a high salary with extensive time off for their "personal fulfillment".
I think that in the past, most people knew that the base state of life is that it sucks, and if you don't want it to suck, you have to work your ass off, and sometimes it will still suck. But it will suck less.
Too many people these days think the base state of life is that everyone takes care of you (either their employer or the government), and if you show up at your job, life goes from good to rockin' great, and life only sucks for people when someone else makes life suck for those people (e.g., the government or their employer). And that is totally wrong... life sucks because they haven't done anything to make it not suck.
Look at the original poster -- not to pick on him, but it's a typical attitude. "What's wrong with having a work / life balance?" Nothing at all -- but that's something that's earned. You are not entitled to it. Life sucks until you EARN life not sucking. It's not up to bosses, taxpayers or anyone else to hand you an easy life.
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
they were told their whole life that lie. they DO expect to go to college, get a good job, make a good life. they were lied to from the beginning.
gaph3rFeb 14, 2012
Those who work the hardest and are the most qualified should be the ones that get promoted. I would much prefer to work under someone who has earned to their position through hard work because I feel it means they will have an appreciation for the hard work I do, hopefully.
Just don't mix up "work life balance" with a high income and easy working conditions. And I know you (the poster) aren't, but I think a lot of folks do. It is possible to work hard, earn a very good income and enjoy a good balance of work and life outside of work.
mekongkayakFeb 18, 2012
And we all now the best qualified always gets promoted..snark,
hydroplaneFeb 14, 2012
As much as I can't stand the whiney hipster trophies for everyone generation this article demonstrates how employers are trying to saddle them with their own problems. More and more employers are looking for new hires to have obscure skills that could be easily trained with any effort for someone who has had the discipline to obtain any type of degree, but hardly any employers make the effort to train anymore. This is a scheme for employers to throw up their hands and say that they can't find any skilled workers in this country so that they can hire for slave wages outside it who current employees are expected to train and pick up the slack for at their own expense.
DF68Feb 15, 2012
It’s true that the "jobless" creators aren't helping. They don't want to train anyone and feel zero responsibility to the city and community where we operate. Although, they’ll gladly take state and city tax breaks as an incentive to stay and not uproot elsewhere, aka corporate welfare extortion. Your last sentence is so true that it's not even funny.
In Arizona, tech company employers are limiting your career potential possibilities. They want new hires to have 2-3 years of experience, they're using the old stand-by BS line of "we can't find people with the skills we need", and they're saying they're unaware of "either university or workforce development programs that could help them find employees.". Last time I checked, most colleges and universities have industry career centric degree programs and job placement assistance departments.
Now, a 15-month study done by ASU's W.P. Carey School of Business and The AZ Tech Council debunks and calls BS on the tired excuse of "we can't find people with the skills we need". In fact, rather than a shortage people in AZ with "skills they need", the study found there's an abundance of new and existing grads available for hire. In short, the "jobless" creators are lying and they don't want to train new hires. They want something for nothing, "zero down / zero investment" employees.
Hiring difficult for high-tech firms
By J. Craig Anderson - Dec. 6, 2011 05:50 PM
The Arizona Republic
http://preview.tinyurl.com/82pje3y
Lack of Arizona technology workers a myth, study finds
Phoenix Business Journal by Patrick O'Grady, Reporter
Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2011
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7j8ncfk
Arizona Technology Council
www.aztechcouncil.org
Arizona’s Technology Workforce: Issues, Opportunities and Competitive Pressures: Executive Summary (pdf - 20 pgs.)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/75xp5ux
mekongkayakFeb 18, 2012
Thanks for the info...."They want something for nothing, "zero down / zero investment" employees." is so true.
It extends to other fields. In South Lake Tahoe the city and ski area built an expensive tram surrounded by one of the new hotel/condo/retail complexes so many ski areas have built. The rents were very high right from the start and even though they have never had full occupancy and many businesses have come and gone: the rents stay high.
Its the Enron effect: I worked hard, I gambled, and I'm gonna make damn sure I get paid well whether the plan was successful or not.
DF68Feb 15, 2012
The real problem: Unrealistic employer expectations that look at employee training as a short term cost loss instead of a long term cost investment benefit.
ybevar1Feb 14, 2012
Being a part of this generation, I know most people who are a part of it have an elitist attitude. They refuse to do blue collar work and have an entitlement mentality. Some would rather live in terrible conditions in the OWS movement for months at a time than look for a job.
kenjuraFeb 15, 2012
You know most people who are a part of it? You must be one connected sunovabitch!
As long as we're all making sweeping, unsubstantiated generalizations, I'll keep the ball rolling: people who claim to know a group of tens of millions of people well enough to judge them all in a single post are all child-raping fascist psychopaths. Did I nail ya?
ybevar1Feb 15, 2012
Totally got me there buddy. Im sitting in my padded room right now.
If I had to try a profile on you I would say you are probably one of the idiots who majored in Sanskrit or poetry and are scratching your head trying to figure out why you don't have a job. Since you are tired of sitting in Mommy's basement, you went out to OWS and started a drum circle.
I can tell you one thing for certain: The millenial generation has less work ethic than the generations before it. You don't have to look much further than what people watch on TV these days. Kardashians, Jersey Shore etc. Who the hell cares about these people? Who are they? People watch these shows and it is absolutely dumbing down this generation. It used to be to get famous or reach the top you had to actually work hard. Today you post a clip on youtube and become an instant success. It's like society doesn't reward hard work anymore, it only cares about gimicks and the like.
The other thing killing this generation is lack of responsibility. Before this century, if you were a bad student, you were simply labeled as a bad student. Today people need a reason, they are "classified" with ADD and told they aren't lazy, they have a disease that makes them lazy.
I have heard so many stories from people in the older generations where they started working at 12 at the bottom of the totem pole and worked their way up during their lives. You just don't hear that kind of stuff anymore, wouldn't you agree?
If you would like to have an intelligent discussion about this matter please go ahead. Though I have a feeling you are one of the people who cares more about pointing out supposed flaws in my arguments rather than presenting some of your own.
lowkeytedFeb 14, 2012
When will each generation stop complaining about the next?
Boomers are hippies
MTV generation has no attention span
Millenials are entitled and lazy
This is just old people not wanting to accept that their influence and values are diminishing.
mekongkayakFeb 18, 2012
Nor willing to take responsibility for their own failures as parents and leaders of the next generation...and that's been true for a couple of cycles.
The kids in the Sixties might have been naive, exitable, irresponsible @ times, etc...but the s**tty racism, sexism, war mongering, police brutality justifying enfused parents then deserved what they got.
casspaFeb 14, 2012
CONFIRMED
analogkid1Feb 15, 2012
It's about supply and demand. Too many college graduates looking for too few jobs. They would be wise to major in computer science....not gym.
barackalypseFeb 15, 2012
LOL at the 3 degrees with the highest growth:
"Physical fitness, parks & rec"
"visual and performing arts"
"communications"
psr0920Feb 14, 2012
The graphic claims that Millenials are largely unemployed, but yet it says that 83.3% are employed. That is misleading.
Also, notice the trends in majors. Millenials have flocked to majors that have higher unemployment rates. Is that hard to believe that those who major in Visual Arts, Humanities, Liberal Arts, etc are more unemployed than those who don't? According to the chart, education has seen the least growth in majors, yet has the 2nd best unemployment.
Success is not about luck, it's about making smart decisions and working hard.
kenjuraFeb 15, 2012
Majoring in physical fitness is the dumbest thing in the world. If you pay tens of thousands of dollars of tuition for that, you're a moron. I'm pretty sure 99% of olympic gold medalists didn't get a college degree in physical fitness--they were too busy actually becoming physically fit.
Colleges have become degree farms, willing to sell an "accredited" degree to anyone stupid enough to pay for it, regardless of whether or not that degree is worth anything. Here's an idea: maybe part of the accreditation process should be determining whether or not there really is any value in the degree. I don't care how legitimate your curriculum is, some degrees will never pay back the tuition, making them a complete waste of time.
rockcityfireFeb 14, 2012
M'eh, They didn't prove any change, just made the same story fit another generation.
I don't see how this is any different that it was 20 or 30 years ago.
Arts degrees still had trouble finding jobs related to their degree back then, and even engineering graduates were having trouble finding placements in '85-'86.
Some things change, some things don't.
raineydoreenFeb 14, 2012
Millennials will pretty sure finds it way to be successful. With the fast development of technology today, it will create a new job for them.
fitzal77Feb 14, 2012
It's too bad they couldn't find statistics based on consistent qualifications. Let's draw conclusions about 18-29 year-olds by looking at numbers of people under 25. Then we can present some data about what Millennials are looking for without showing any control data, and then make a judgment call about what that data means!
It's science!
andysasylumFeb 14, 2012
I've been sayin' it for years!
reaper527Feb 14, 2012
a better title would have been millennials are screwing themselves with their sense of entitlement.
kenjuraFeb 15, 2012
Would that be the one you heard they had on the news? It's fun to repeat things!
worthwildFeb 14, 2012
Millenials are the Grandkids of the Boomers.
They all got trophies no matter how bad they sucked at soccer, baseball, badminton, whatever. they were given daily shots of self esteem and
As a result of Helicopter mom coddling and a completely unrealistic concept of loyalty, hard work, service to others and competition they have expectations that seem absolutely bizarre to hiring managers. It is an epidemic of narcissism that manifests itself in lack of empathy and the inability to form relationships (and no, a facebook friend is not a real friendship)
It's like we live in a protracted world of Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon, where everyone is above average, or at least they have been sold that bill of goods.
Now obviously not ALL people in the category we call 'millennials' fit that stereotype but the ones who do make it miserable for the rest.
btw, I am Gen-X and we had our own set of 'failure to launch' issues.
A few hard knocks from the real world will reset the ego button for most.
freetacos27Feb 14, 2012
No doubt the millennial generation has its slackers and degenerates but many in the cohort have been saddled with an outrageous and burdensome amount of student loan debt as well as an unfavorable job market.
h8f8kesFeb 14, 2012
The student loan debt was forced upon you without your consent?
gaph3rFeb 14, 2012
Most 17 or 18 year olds have no concept of what $120,000 of debt really looks like. A lot of them turn to their parents who think "My kid MUST go to college" and their school guidance counselors and teachers who also push Higher Education. Our society is built on a promise that if young people go to college and achieve marginal to decent grades, they will be at least moderately successful. They are told that without a college degree their only job prospects are working at the gas station on the corner or the McDonalds down the street.
And the real sad fact of the matter is, that's the damn truth.
reaper527Feb 14, 2012
"Most 17 or 18 year olds have no concept of what $120,000 of debt really looks like. "
ignorance isn't an excuse when they sign a legal contract. also, if they are going 120,000 into debt for school, they are doing it wrong.
there are good state schools that cost significantly less than that for 4 years, and if people go to community college for 2 years and then go to a 4 year school for the remainder of their college duration, they will save even more.
"college is expensive" isn't an excuse for lack of planning and foresight.
gaph3rFeb 14, 2012
"there are good state schools that cost significantly less than that for 4 years, and if people go to community college for 2 years and then go to a 4 year school for the remainder of their college duration, they will save even more."
I work at a very good state school and I can tell you that your statement just isn't held up by the statistics, this is the sort of thing that Governor's love to boast about but is absolutely untrue when it comes to enrollment figures.
"college is expensive" isn't an excuse for lack of planning and foresight.
Please explain to us what sort of planning and foresight someone has available to them at age 17? Because as far as I know most people spend most of the those years as a child. And if you want to throw that back at the parents for failing to do that for their own child, that would, I think, account for all that debt some students are required to take on when they do end up in college. And sure, there is also the argument about saving and waiting to go to college, but if you are one of those people without a college degree and the least amount of work experience (since you are, remember now only 17 years old here) you are going to be among some of the lowest full-time wage earners in the country. So the amount of disposable income you have to re-allocate to an account for "saving for college" is going to be next to zilch.
I'm not advocating that prospective students take on gargantuan amounts of debt. However your willingness to merely dismiss something with a simple wave of your hand without weighing all of the societal factors is, well in your own words, ignorant.
reaper527Feb 14, 2012
i go to a state school here in massachusetts, and it is roughly half of your stated $120,000 of debt figure. also, you completely dismissed my point about going to a community college to get generic english/math requirements out of the way and then transferring to a 4 year school for the last 2 years.
regardless of age, if someone is signing their name to a large debt, it is THEIR responsibility to acknowledge that it is a large debt and decide if an alternative school would be a better decision.
if someone goes to a 30k/year private school instead of a 15k/year state school, that is on them when they graduate and they have twice as much debt.
gaph3rFeb 14, 2012
I think you are missing the point. Or not reading my entire posts. I never said that debt wasn't their (or yours, or mine - when it comes to our student loans) responsibility.
And I did respond to your statement. I am sorry I was not more clear. You are under the very common misconception that a lot of students do their general ed requirements at cheaper two year schools and transfer to four year schools as a cost saving strategy. I am telling you as someone who actually reads reports on these numbers because he works at a state school, that this just isn't true. Sure, some students do end up doing that, but the number is actually quite low. Look it up.
Depending on which state you grow up in (and we are especially screwed here in New England), a good state school (in state) can run you 10,000 a year MINIMUM for just the tuition. That doesn't include room/board, books, and other associated fees. A "good" education can easily cost you 20,000-30,000 a year as a full-time, in-state, residential college student. An out-of-state student, full-time, residential student can easily run 30,000-40,000 or more.
You could be going to Cape Cod Community College for all I know. Or you could be going to FSU or you could be going to UMass Amherst, which coincidentally costs over 22,000 a year for in-state and almost 35,000 for out-of-state. But the cost is there. And a lot of those degrees, the responsible ones that people keep going on about, those degrees are often only offered at large research institutes. It doesn't cost anywhere near as much to have Arts and Sciences / Liberal Arts programs like English or History or even a BA (not BS) in Mathematics or Computer Science, as it does to have a research based computer or biological science or engineering programs. So yeah, you are gonna pay through the nose to get one of those degrees.
I absolutely, completely agree with you that each individual is responsible for managing their debt, but there is also a very good reason why so many people get stuck with it.
reaper527Feb 14, 2012
"You are under the very common misconception that a lot of students do their general ed requirements at cheaper two year schools and transfer to four year schools as a cost saving strategy. I am telling you as someone who actually reads reports on these numbers because he works at a state school, that this just isn't true."
actually, i never said most people do this. i said that anyone who wants to do this can, and as a result cut their education expenses almost in half. it seems ridiculous to say this generation is getting screwed by expensive education costs when they are willingly paying much more than they have to.
to put this perfectly bluntly, i'm not saying most people do go to community college before going to a 4 year school, but i am saying that option is AVAILABLE to everyone, and if they don't utilize it, they don't have a leg to stand on when criticizing the cost of education.
"A 'good' education can easily cost you 20,000-30,000 a year as a full-time, in-state, residential college student"
and as a commuting college student, that figure comes much closer to the 10-15/year
"I absolutely, completely agree with you that each individual is responsible for managing their debt, but there is also a very good reason why so many people get stuck with it."
like i said, many cases of people being stuck with large debts are because they weren't being responsible when they created it. its like if someone could afford to get a $10,000 car, and got a $10,000 car but added $20,000 worth of options bringing the total well beyond what they were willing to go into debt for.
"You could be going to Cape Cod Community College for all I know. Or you could be going to FSU or you could be going to UMass Amherst"
for what its worth, i'm a umass lowell student
gaph3rFeb 14, 2012
I went back and read you prior comment, you're right, you didn't, I definitely misread it. And it is a viable option, frankly it is surprising that with the rising costs of college that more students aren't going this route.
I don't completely agree with you that individuals don't have a leg to stand on when criticizing the cost of education and the debt associated with it. Everyone comes from a different situation and sure, there are plenty of people who tack on those extra features like heated seats too.
I think the biggest problem right now is that kids hedge their debt against what they perceive will be their future earnings.
UMass Lowell is a great school.
h8f8kesFeb 14, 2012
Do the parents not understand the concept of borrowing money either?
I disagree with your assertion that you cannot get a decent job without a college degree. A good trade school for a fraction of the price will get a kid into a very high demand job as an A&P technician or a CNC machinist.
I also see no issues working at McDonalds or the Gas station if push comes to shove. It is a great way to help prevent student loans and there could be room for advancement and a decent wage if you stick with it.
I think the big part of the problem is our kids no longer look at life through the lens of "entry level" or view minimum wage as "an opportunity".
gaph3rFeb 14, 2012
I think that just introduces the very same problem. The current issue is we have more college graduates than jobs that require those qualifications. If you start telling everyone to go to trade school you'll end up with a lot of highly skilled, but unemployed trades people. What might work for an individual isn't a solution to a systemic problem in our economy.
I don't have anything against people working at McDonalds or the gas station. I disagree, partially at least, with your statement that it is a decent wage. It might be that in some parts of the country - but there are plenty of places where even a full-time job at above minimum wage is barely enough to sustain a single individual.
You are on to something about the lens kids see things through. But they are only partially to blame. Everything out there has been telling them that a college degree is the thing they need and that they'll earn X millions of dollars more over their career as a wage earner. A lot of colleges even have this stuff in their marketing materials, even though a lot of studies show now that while there are gains to be made, it is nowhere near as great as is advertised. And in some cases, isn't worth all the extra debt college loans will bring or the 3.5-5 years of lost wage earning potential.
fitzal77Feb 14, 2012
A high-paying job was promised to me when I took out my student loans with almost as much certainty as getting a house for a mortgage. It's customary to have a home inspection done before you purchase a house, but there's no equivalent with school, even though the costs can be comparable.
asrrin29Feb 14, 2012
From the day I was born, by every adult figure in my life, force feeding me the line "Get a college degree or spend the rest of your life flipping burgers." It's as close to holding the metaphorical gun to our generation's head as you can get. I don't regret my education, but I regret the 6 figures that my wife and I combined will end up paying over our lifetimes for something most people in the industrialized world get for free.
m3g4tr0nFeb 14, 2012
Yes, it's true that the economy is pretty bad now. However, most "Millenials" appear to be a bunch of whiny bitches.
The world isn't a lush valley of gumdrops. It's no longer a world of hot, barely-legal sex, with buckets of fast cash falling from the heavens like a sweet, sweet golden shower of financial success. The world is cold, and dark. They need to man up, and realize that.
CalTjaderFeb 14, 2012
So millennials = losers
h8f8kesFeb 14, 2012
Not losers. A lot of the kids I see from the millenial generation are extremely bright and talented. The problem is they do not know hard times and we have not prepared them for the world.
kenjuraFeb 15, 2012
Ha. We don't know hard times. That's rich.
We grew up in the 80s and 90s. We watched a world shed the Cold War, embracing peace and cooperation. We watched the economy boom, lifting everyone up--we even saw a balanced budget. We watched the birth of the most amazing and revolution communications infrastructure ever, promising to usher in a new era of human understanding and possibility.
Then, just as we became adults, the 21st century happened.
We watched our leaders, all members of older generations, throw away peace and embrace a new era of fear, conquest, and endless war. We watched the economy fall apart, and to date it hasn't recovered. We watched politics become finally and irrevocably polarized; we may well have seen the last functional U.S. government ever. We watched as our last, best hope, the oh-so-holy Internet, got raped to death by corporate concerns about piracy, and governmental incursions into privacy (not to mention our trusted corporate friends selling our private details for profit).
You're talking about a generation who started paying for college just when the economy fell apart, and entered the workforce either during the Bush recession, or the current, much worse one. You're talking about people raised by a generation who threw away everything their parents taught them in the 50s and 60s so they could embrace "love and peace, man", then when they started getting old, suddenly became Fox-News-watching arch-conservatives, who think the biggest problem with this country is all the money we who are still in the workforce are putting into *their* social security and medicare that they're going to need for the rest of their lives, since none of them actually saved anything for retirement. By the time we Millennials are finally stable, our parents will be destitute, totally dependent on us, since they were so busy voting against their own interests and making fun of our foolish, idealistic ways (you know...believing in the things THEY thought were so cool in the 60s).
You're talking about a generation that was raised by single mothers and fathers, in an era when divorce exploded into popularity. A generation so turned off by the idea of marriage and childrearing that we're in real danger of a true Idiocracy situation, with all the best and brightest foreswearing building a family of their own, leaving it to the rest. This is to say nothing, of course, of how foolish it would be to have children when you can't even feed yourself, let alone save for a college tuition that will be five times the already hyperinflated rates of today by the time the little tyke is all grown up (and probably just as useless).
I don't speak for myself. There are always exceptions to every generalization. I'm proud of my modest success, and I would recommend my ways to other millennials looking to have their own. But I understand the plight of those that don't. I don't feel any need to look down on those not as "wise" (read: lucky) as me. I think, like those crazy hippies of yesteryear, who seem to have forgotten this themselves, that we could all do with a bit more understanding and empathy...in *addition* to a wise, practical approach to life in a capitalist democracy.
I don't mean to belittle the OP; in fact, I agree wholeheartedly with the above comment. This isn't a direct response. It's a manifesto. It's not an excuse. It's a story. Our story. The story of the first generation to come of age in the 21st century, in the new millennium, and of the extreme, almost melodramatic contrast between reality as it was presented to us as children, and reality as it is now, as it was then, as it always will be.
If we have a sense of entitlement, it came from being constantly told "you can do anything if you put your mind to it!". It came from never being able to fail. It came from having to wear a helmet everywhere. It came from being raised by weirdo hippies who thought we were going to be starbabies or something. It came from the fermented hopes and dreams of a generation who saw the benefit of revolutionary change in their own times, and thought we would further their goals, forgetting the very nature of rebellion. It came from high school teachers and counselors who had nothing practical to say about the value of a poorly-chosen college degree. It came from the politicians on TV saying that all you have to do is vote for their guy, and all your dreams and wishes will come true. It came from children's shows that told us that bigotry is dead, everyone loves everyone, and there are no problems in the world. It came from centuries of American exceptionalism that irresponsibly and pointlessly assumed that each generation would outdo the last, without any thought to how that would practically be achieved.
Every child learns from someone. Nobody plucks their values from the ether. I'm sure the most selfish, entitled young adult has learned enough hard lessons in the last 12 years that he doesn't need continued belittling and abuse from his "wise" elders.
Let's just accept one another and stop using age brackets as some sort of f**king status symbol.
h8f8kesFeb 15, 2012
I never used age brackets as any sort of status symbol. In fact, a lot of the problems your generation have suffered from are caused by the greed of previous generations. You should also note that I think that the millenials are extremely bright and talented. Don't get your panties in a wad.
What I meant was anybody born after 1945 has not known "truly" hard times. We have never had to eat lard and biscuits to prevent starvation, been on the recieving end of soup kitchens, or had to bath only once a week.
Sadly, this is what is coming thanks to the unmitigated greed and wild spending that has occurred since the 1950's. The millenials (my two children) are going to be the ones stuck with this bill and I don't believe we have prepared you for the rough times to come.
mekongkayakFeb 18, 2012
Some great points...REALLY GREAT opening paragraphs summing up what is not said by the George Wills and such.
Most young folks in the 60's and 70's were not hippies. Love and Peace was still a minority ideal among most youth.
The self esteem and helmets all the time is a pretty recent development. As for the politicians...they've always been saying s**t. But parents refusing to admit their kids might need some help does factor in..."Don't tell me about my kid" is a common complaint teachers have heard for awhile..from poor to rich.
Also..we forget the MASSIVE influence marketers have on our lives "You deserve a break today" and such has been around for a long time. Many kids in many fast emerging economies are very bratty: I have seen both China and Thailand. There;s something about the New Rich....
We should also factor in the what effect seeing thieves and even murderers kept from jail just because they were rich or protected by corporate law...along with the obscene paydays the 1% have been rewarding themselves while wages stagnate, prices rise, and good jobs disappear.
criticalmythFeb 14, 2012
This is the kind of claptrap that tells younger people that they shouldn't even bother trying, because they are already destined to fail. And so they won't. And when things therefore don't get better, they will blame it on everyone else but themselves.
The only way that the mistakes of previous generations will be solved is if those able to do so stop pointing fingers, roll up their damn sleeves, and make it happen. If the "millennials" want a better world, then they are going to have to work to make it happen.
jqp123Feb 14, 2012
"If the "millennials" want a better world, then they are going to have to work to make it happen."
"Work" is something they've never experienced --- and probably won't until mommy and daddy's money runs out.
sleestakslayerFeb 14, 2012
I would watch your tone. Someday they may make you sit in your urine-soaked clothing longer than you would wish.
jqp123Feb 14, 2012
You're probably right --- after a lifetime of sponging off mommy and daddy, work changing diapers in a retirement home is about all they'll be qualified for and probably won't do a competent job at that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitFeb 14, 2012
Did you look at the charts? In every single category their unemployment is far higher than the average. They are not getting hired even with a good education.
criticalmythFeb 14, 2012
So let's just give up and not even try, right?
ferretmanFeb 16, 2012
What goes around comes around, I'm afraid.
It's gonna be rough for a bit, gang. Get ready.
gatewayspaymentFeb 15, 2012
MPP Global Solutions are the leading provider of Payment Gateways and eCommerce Solutions to the Media and Entertainment Industries.http://www.mppglobal.com/
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
free free free ...... we do provide best advertisement of your property of free in the internent. visit our site for more info http://www.delhiproperty.orgComment is buried, click here to see the rest.