I want to live the life of a millennial

<p>I don’t know, maybe being the tail end of the baby boom/ beginning of gen x, having parents who were from the so called greatest generation gives me a different perspective, but I think classifying millenials as anything is as dangerous as classifying anything:</p>

<p>“The Depression era people (our parents) grew up with nothing, lived through a time of much higher unemployment with no safety net and yet the attitude of that generation is ‘work, work, work, save, save, save’. This generation (again just some of them) see is as futile.”</p>

<p>That is one of the stereotypes I am talking about, Tom Brokaw and others have made this into the ‘greatest’ generation and so forth, and like anything else, it is part true, and part quite frankly myth. Being frugal, working hard and so forth were part of that generation, but it also was not consistent. A lot of young people in the 1930’s gave up, they were nihilistic, a lot of people lost faith, birth rates plummeted because people were unsure of the future. Millions of young people were riding the rails from here to there, not really even knowing what they were looking for. Eric Severeid (yeah, the old dude who used to do commentaries on CBS evening news when I was a kid), talked about being young in that time…what is lost is what programs like the CCC were about, it was trying to give the young people some direction, some sense of purpose…we see the result after it was all over, my father saw it as it was happening. </p>

<p>As far as work work, work, some had tremendous work ethic, but some of them didn’t, do you think the stereotype of the lazy guy working in the union, the guy at work whom everyone loved but just seemed to be there, weren’t based in part in fact? Those 1950’s tv shows lampooned it, because it did go on…and of course, we had the ‘bad crowd’ that everyone was afraid of, the motorcycle gang types, etc…:). </p>

<p>I think it is likewise had to classify millenials or gen x types. Gen X were supposed to work in McJobs and be slackers, now we hear how they are so much better than their descendants. Baby Boomers were a bunch of spoiled kids, coddled by 'that d*** doctor Spock", hippy war protesters, etc…and well, now we look back and realize they didn’t tune out and drop acid for long…</p>

<p>Millenials face things we never did. The kids obsessed about grades always existed, of course, those to whom anything less than an A was a disaster, friends of mine, especially the kids of Asian and south Asian parents, were like this, as well as a lot of the Jewish kids, so it was there; Roger Kahn, the author of the great book “The Boys of Summer” about the Brooklyn Dodgers, described the NYU of the late 1940’s as being full of fellow Jews, heading for medical or law school, where the works of Chaucer didn’t matter unless it counted towards a grade in a class…you get the idea. Today, though, this has been serialized all over the place, the mania for GPA and test scores is at a rate unheard of in my generation. Kids in grade school obsess over GPA’s, as if not having a 4.0 in 4th grade will ruin them, they are afraid to take chances, in high school they won’t take a challenging class that will stretch them, for fear they will not get an A and wipe out their chances, the whole world seems to be revolving around numbers and letter grades…schools, to answer this challenge, have responded by dumping hours of homework on a kid, in part because people heard what the homework load was like on kids in Asia and other parts of the world, and decided this was the magic formula (and also a cheap way to try and show how good an education they were giving), and then we have the hysteria over EC’s as well…</p>

<p>And want to know something? They are handling it better than I would expect, I give them a lot of credit. Yeah, I see the kids living off mom and dad, I see the kids from all over the country coming to NYC, working in marketing or whatever they do, with the rent paid for by mom and dad, I saw the privileged kids at the school my S went to, where they fully expected that mom and dad would be there…but I also see a lot more hardworking kids trying to make a life out of the mess that is out there, that they didn’t create. Want my honest opinion, a lot of these kids put most of the kids I grew up with to shame, in my generation, growing up in the burbs, we faced a lot better times and there was an assumption we would do as well or better than our parents, these kids know it won’t be that easy. Kids in my generation could get a degree in a tech field, and know they could get a decent paying job, these days, thanks to outsourcing and the visa system, they face salaries and such that have been hit hard, especially for entry level positions, where companies would rather take some kid from India or China on an H1B, because it is so much cheaper…that didn’t exist when I was growing up, unless you happened to be a Phd in organic chemistry or solid state physics or an Phd in engineering…</p>

<p>But these kids for the most part fight the good battle, and if mom and dad are helping to pay for it it probably is because we haven’t left them much of a legacy…kids need to go to college, and the cost of it, even at public universities, have gone crazy, and in a tight job market employers are picking what they see as the cream of the crop…so kids pile on loans to go to more prestigious schools, in the hope it gets them in the door.</p>

<p>As far as the kid in the article, it sounds like he is someone marching to the beat of his own drum, and there are always kids like that. Music has never been easy, and even the most successful bands will tell stories of living out of their car and living on canned tuna and ramen noodles, classical musicians even then will tell you how hard it was to make it. The kid in the article isn’t lazy, he isn’t materialistic, he has decided that life for him right now is a lot more than being a salary slave trying to make his way up the job ladder, he is finding something for himself. Being in IT, there are more than a few people who went that path, then figured out they needed to do more to make a living and have a chance at a family and such,but for now he is doing his own thing on his own dime. Kids like that IME often end up a lot more grounded and easy to work with, they tend to be centered, they have gotten out their wanderlust or whatever, and also aren’t the type who comes out of school thinking a)the world owes them something or b)that the purpose of life is to get ahead no matter how you do it, and everything is a battle to take anything they can anyway they can get it…Given half a chance, I think this generation may end up more grounded than mine ever was, and they may have to work twice as hard as we did to do it, but maybe they will be the ones to reject all the crap and realize what they want out of life:). Slackers, lazy people, morons, entitled people, exist and existed in any generation, and I think it is age and myopia that makes people think the latest generation is crap. I see my son and the other kids who are taking a jump off the deep end to try and go into music, working harder than the kids in ivy league schools who want to be investment bankers for the most part, simply because they love it enough to do that, and that tells me that kids haven’t changed all that much, it is us, the old grouches, who have. I think what we want is the perceived world of the carefree 20’s, when all we had to worry about was ourselves, not the reality of these kids lives, which is often a lot more stress filled than anything we faced.</p>

<p>Well, my goal is to work in international health so… we’ll see. I’ll hopefully be in CA this summer for an internship so that’s kinda like traveling, right? :smiley: lol</p>

<p>Dstark, perhaps the carefree image you see is hiding a different truth well. In a way, spending a good chunk of disposable income (on travel, Apple gadgets, dinners, and perhaps fancy clothes for the IBers) comes from the realization that this might very well be the last time, we will be able to afford such luxuries. </p>

<p>The starker reality (pun intended) is that we realize that we will not be able to duplicate the life of our parents or grandparents. It is a given that the economy, and especially under the direction is has taken in the past decade, will not sustain a life that consists of getting a good job in your twenties, and retiring anywhere after 20 (a la public servants) or close to double that amount for more people. We realize that the expensive “security” system will not cover our generation – if it covers the ones before us without major increases in … OUR costs. </p>

<p>Take a good look at our future. Expensive housing in all the “in” places. Stagnating wages in all but a few industries. High costs of insurance and medical costs (and we ain’t seen nothing yet) and then … education. Will we be able to avoid the public system of education that fails so many, and vote with our feet? Probably not, unless we land one of those amazing jobs that keeps on delivering high salaries and perks. </p>

<p>All the indications is that our future will look very much like the present in “wonderful” places such as Greece or Spain, or even France and Germany. </p>

<p>So yes, we might emulate the ostrich for a while, and enjoy life a bit more than we should. But that does not mask the fact that we know that the life of the generations who might have graduated from HBS in the fifties is not about to be repeated. Nor the ones who graduated from more pedestrian schools and did pretty well. </p>

<p>Not that pretty of a picture. Little wonder we close our eyes and mind a la Jean de la Fontaine’s cigale!</p>

<p>[La</a> Cigale et la fourmi](<a href=“http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue209/cigale.html]La”>La Cigale et la fourmi)</p>

<p>^ "Dstark, perhaps the carefree image you see is hiding a different truth well. In a way, spending a good chunk of disposable income (on travel, Apple gadgets, dinners, and perhaps fancy clothes for the IBers) comes from the realization that this might very well be the last time, we will be able to afford such luxuries. </p>

<p>The starker reality (pun intended) is that we realize that we will not be able to duplicate the life of our parents or grandparents."</p>

<p>My son would absolutely agree with that. I sometimes think I taught that lesson too well.</p>

<p>That wouldn’t surprise me, if kids felt that the might as well enjoy it while they can. One of the things the geniuses at the top IMO have not figured out is if they create diminishing returns for working people, who will buy their products? For example, when Nike Shoes are made in Indonesia, or Apple products are made in China, almost none of the workers who make the product can afford them. It is one of the problems with wealth concentrating in a small group of people, it wipes out demand, it was one of the fundamental lessons of the 1920’s, where there was this ‘boom’, but it hit a relatively small part of the population, so companies were awash in capital thanks to the stock boom, tried to use it to expand, but found out there wasn’t demand to justify it, because there wasn’t the market. </p>

<p>The only positive signs I have seen recently is that even conservative think tanks and such are saying that the current system cannot go on like this, that if the wealth and income doesn’t spread down, we are in trouble. We can complain and moan about the Millenials, but they are our future, and blaming them for the mess we and those before us have created might make some feel smug that the problems of the millenials have nothing to do with us, but these are our future, too.</p>

<p>Xiggi, I am not judging how the millenials live. If somebody wants to travel, follow a dream, whatever…that is his or her business.</p>

<p>I am not criticizing the guy in the op link.</p>

<p>"“Take a good look at our future. Expensive housing in all the “in” places. Stagnating wages in all but a few industries. High costs of insurance and medical costs (and we ain’t seen nothing yet) and then … education. Will we be able to avoid the public system of education that fails so many, and vote with our feet? Probably not, unless we land one of those amazing jobs that keeps on delivering high salaries and perks.”</p>

<p>I mentioned the job market and housing. No argument there.</p>

<p>I guess my grandparents are a little older than yours and they didnt have it that great. The depression was pretty rough.</p>

<p>I dont think my parent 's generation had it that great either, but there were opportunities. </p>

<p>Mine has had it pretty good, but…the distribution of the fruits of the labor is skewed. Some people of my generation are struggling.
The financial crisis has affected my generation. </p>

<p>What I see happening is yes…the millenials opportunities are fewer and are less stable.
The millenials are getting hit at the front end of adulthood.
My generation is going to get crushed at the back end. Maybe that is preferable to getting crushed at the front end. </p>

<p>The problems I see are more than generational. When 1 percent owns 40 percent of the financial assets, 1 percent makes 90 percent of the income gains, 10 percent makes 60 percent of the income… The economy is skewed in ways that are not just generational. This skewness affects society. It is affecting your generation.</p>

<p>Maybe the skewness is caused by technology and worldwide labor and will be hard to overcome. </p>

<p>I think there is *a tendency to talk about *the old days as the good old days.</p>

<p>I hope…somehow…that the good days are in the future.</p>

<p>Xiggi, do you see positive developments? Does anything give you hope for your generation?</p>

<p>I think my kids are pretty hopeful. They are not into things like cars, or homes. Maybe that comes later. They are more into activites and friends and a good social life.</p>

<p>Xiggi, one big thing that helped my generation and I dont see helping yours is our infrastructure wasnt built out. We didnt have 10,000 Starbucks. 10,000 McDonalds. There were fewer homes. Fewer shopping centers. Hospitals. My generation got to build the businesses and infrastructure that exist today. It was labor intensive. Lots of jobs were created.</p>

<p>The businesses that are created today… The tech industry doesnt create the jobs. Some tech businesses destroy jobs. I joke with my friend at IBM. He says IBM is working on a new technology. I respond, “Great. More jobs can be destroyed.”</p>

<p>musicprnt #65.</p>

<p>I so agree with that. When I watch the “captains of industry” outsource jobs for slave wages, and they would tell you they are against slavery, that they are “pro growth,” I think we have become greedy to the point of stupidity. No lesser an industrialist than Henry Ford believed the best thing he could do for his business was pay his workers enough to be able to afford what they were making.</p>

<p>That’s the thinking that made our country great. Industrialists, CEOs who paid their workers well. Unions, before the money got siphoned off into it’s own robber barron groups. Affordable education, before the “administrative class” figured out a way to make high six figures at a “non profit” institution.</p>

<p>We’ve never had this kind of income inequality before now, not since the pre union slave days. We’ve never thought that was all right. I blame the fact that stocks are valued purely on profit. There is no incentive to pay the workers well, and there is every incentive to off shore jobs to slave wage countries. this is where tax policy should come into play. Not taxes on the income of workers, but taxes on off shoring, tarrifs on products manufactured elsewhere.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>DS, to be clear I do not see our world as hopeless. I just think that it will be very different from the prior generations’. For the record, I get a healthy dose of reality when I travel abroad, including to what I call home. There I see people who earn 50 dollars a week walking the streets with large smiles on their face. They are happy to make ends meet and eat reasonably well. The difference is that they never had much of what we view as essential. They live in very modest conditions. The next level --the young middle class-- is composed of college graduates who earned degrees in engineering and expect salaries of about 300 to 400 dollars a week and the possibility of acquiring a home of 50 to 60,000 dollars. The comparisons make our “complaining” rather ludicrous. And, by the way, that place shares a common (abject) border with the US, gets all the american TV channels, phone service, and plenty of items that have destroyed their fabric of life. </p>

<p>The reality is that I should NOT complain. When I start my family, our income will be substantial with possibilities of riches through stock options. What I think will be hard is to reproduce the type of house I grew up in Texas and Mexico. And I do not think I will be able to afford the type of private schools I attended – at least not in the Bay Area. But then, there are other attributes that makes living in San Francisco appealing. Bike rides are fabulous. Food scene is vibrant. Stanford plays great football, and the slopes are a blink away. </p>

<p>Our generation will adapt; just like yours did, and all the ones before. And, perhaps, having to curb our spending habits and luxury expectations will not be such a bad thing. My family in Europe lives in smaller quarters, share one car per family, and until recently did not have those thousands of TV and Internet channels. Their houses do not have walking closets … and they do not seem to miss them or the WalMart crap that fills most US homes. After all, there is a life out there that is not as consumerist as ours, and has learned to live within their means. Well, they were forced to by their political choices. A choice we have started to envy and … copy. </p>

<p>I think we will be fine! Just as fine as the rest of the world, but a LOT less the envy of the other world citizens.</p>

<p>I also remain optimistic about our power of … invention. Our future depends on allowing more locomotives and not hanging too many idle wagons on those locomotives. After a while, the train cannot move further. To be clear, when I say we will fine, it will not come from the continuation of the nanny state policies, and a return of the prominence of cancerous unions. We do not need more Detroit, but more … Teslaville. And we surely do not need a centralized state. We do not need more policies a la Sacramento. The history of Europe is clear, and so are the results of their failed policies. Believing our goverment is the solution is … well … let’s keep this thread open!</p>

<p>It’s not political to say innovation is the driving engine. It’s not political either to say that the income inequality comes from American workers competing with slave wages in other countries, while the executive class continues to pocket the profits at preferred tax rates. </p>

<p>It’s history to say that the rise of preferred capital gains rates coincides with the start of severe income inequality in the United States. Without a middle class? What’s next?</p>

<p>Poetgrl-</p>

<p>I have been accused of a lot of things, of being anti capital, a communist (far from it), waging ‘class warfare’ against those who have done well because I am jealous (I am not, I make a very good living)…all because I question the notion that the growth in wealth in the top 1% is not good for all, and that in fact the real enemy is greed. The whole point of cutting taxes, for example, was supposed to result in capital formation, that that investment would lead to new jobs and so forth, but the problem is the capital markets themselves have been skewed. In theory, when the well off have money to spare, they invest it, that should create more jobs, opportunities and so forth. The problem is that that is not what happened, that most of that money is being put into investments that don’t generate capital, but rather are all about speculation. Trying to recall the exact details, but the crux of the matter is that when the top people invest, it is in things like hedge funds and such,that don’t generate anything but wealth for those who invest in them and the managers, and the effect is limited to a very small group of people. Likewise, much of the invstment has been in speculative investments, like derivatives, that traded naked like that have almost nothing to do with the means of production.</p>

<p>It is interesting when you say the stock market is priced based on profits, it isn’t even really based on that. The prices of stocks in this day and age are primarily determined by the views of analysts, who in turn are generally a bunch of people in their 20’s who have graduated from supposedly the best schools, and whose whole view of life is based in some formulas some ‘genius’ came up with in how you value a company or stock…it is why you have companies trading at huge multiples of what their book value should be, because it is all based on the perceptions of these guys. Put it this way, the people who watch e-trade ads and invest are bupkus in the markets, what pushes stock prices are the pricing formulas and the opinions of these clowns, many of whom quite honestly are the equivalent of the old image of the ivory tower professor (I have met them, not a pragmatic bunch). </p>

<p>So wanna know what happens? Company A is doing well, producing a great product, have some great things coming up…and get slammed by analysts. Why? Because they are hiring people to design and develop these products, and some 20 something running some formula in a system decides this is too much labor, and slams them. A company reports better than expected earnings in a quarter,better than projected, but analysts slam them because it was too much higher than projections, so they can only go down from there…you get the drift.</p>

<p>Worse, once upon a time corporate pay was based in salaries and cash bonuses based on profits…today, 98% of their income is from stock grants (not even options), that expire in a year…so now CEO’s, to make those 10’s of millions, do everything they can to please the stock analyst gods, which may or may not help with the long term thriving of their company (and before someone tells me this isn’t true, I am high enough in the food chain to have heard these kind of things from senior executives mouths, that we can’t hire because analysts won’t like it, we can’t do X in quarter Y because it will cause analysts to frown, etc). One way to fix this would be to find ways to make cash compensation, rather than stock, tax favored in terms of compensation, and force companies to report stock grants as full costs on their 10ks, right now it is only a hit to their treasure stock value).</p>

<p>Yes, exactly. I was oversimplifying for the sake of brevity, but you are exactly right.</p>

<p>We are on the same exact page.</p>

<p>And I’ve seen it from this side of the continuum, living at the preferred capital gains rate, and I cannot see this is good for this country even if it is good for me.</p>

<p>Xiggi, I love your post. I dont necessarily agree with your sentiments in your last paragraph but that is ok. The rest of your post is great. Sounds like your life is going well. Looks like you are experiencing a lot of life. You have found a lot to like in the bay area. I enjoyed reading about what you have seen in other places. Other cultures. You made many good points. I think your post turns 4 chairs. Turns mine. :)</p>

<p>Mine too. I only want the best for you, Xiggi.</p>

<p>I live a wonderful life, a life more wonderful than I could ever have imagined. And most of it I did without money, or at least any of a significant kind. (Though now that I am retired, I can’t believe how it piles up.) Every morning, I wake up and I have messages and conversations with my friends in the Congo, Ethiopia, Uganda, India, Afghanistan - people who feel as blessed to be doing the work they are doing as I do. They don’t aspire to live like most Americans - or their images of most Americans. They want to help their neighbors with some clean water, and maybe a little food. They want to feel that they too can live for a higher purpose, that they are not victims of corporations, or governments, their own or anyone else’s. </p>

<p>I have no idea where this country is headed. I expect it will be easier, and cheaper, to build giant domes over our major cities than to do anything about global climate change. I expect there is more profit in it. The domes will be anchored on someone else’s land - maybe an Indian reservation - and most people will muddle through, trying to earn enough to get a place under the dome. It reminds me so much of what I know of ancient Rome.</p>

<p>My children would be truly blessed to live a life as wonderful as mine, and find a little space of freedom for their hearts to roam. So far, so good, I think.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course, I had to stay inline with my “typical” Xiggi views. I understand that the last paragraph is not universally pleasing, and must represent a minority view that is contradictory to the current views of most. And that is OK. I would, however, be a hypocrite if I would commented about my optimism for the future without balancing it with my pessimism about a country that might adopt policies that hinder the entrepreneurship, the innovation, and the pionneering spirit that has propelled our country to the top. </p>

<p>As always, I think that the pendulum swings too much in one direction and then the other.</p>

<p>The pendulum does swing…</p>

<p>If you hold a minority view… It is a large minority.</p>