TwentySomething: How my generation works(rebekahmonson.com)
rebekahmonson.com
TwentySomething: How my generation works
http://rebekahmonson.com/2010/09/02/twentysomething-gen-y-work/
15 comments
Yes, the author did generalize. However, all the criticisms that I read about their generation are exactly that, generalizations. And the articles from both sides are always self-serving.
The unemployment rate for under 25s is stageringly high compared to the general population. The cost of education has gone up 300% while inflation has gone up a mere 30% since 1990, most paid with borrowed monies. The whole economy tanked due to our debt fueled ways while they had no voice, choice, or ability to influence the outcome.
If they want to be all "whiny," let them. My prospects were great coming out of college in the 1990's. The future was paved with gold. I wouldn't say much is paved with anything these days, let alone the road in front the driveway. The worlds an unjust place and they're finding it out. We told them it wasn't.
The unemployment rate for under 25s is stageringly high compared to the general population. The cost of education has gone up 300% while inflation has gone up a mere 30% since 1990, most paid with borrowed monies. The whole economy tanked due to our debt fueled ways while they had no voice, choice, or ability to influence the outcome.
If they want to be all "whiny," let them. My prospects were great coming out of college in the 1990's. The future was paved with gold. I wouldn't say much is paved with anything these days, let alone the road in front the driveway. The worlds an unjust place and they're finding it out. We told them it wasn't.
As I grow older, the more I realize there is nothing new under the sun. The biggest difference between the current crop of 20-somethings and the previous crop (my generation) is the internet--ideas are easily accessible, so anyone can write about environmental issues, or factory farming, or peak oil, or whatever. Previously, you had to go to the library and find this stuff, but it was there (a few examples: Wendell Berry, Jacques Ellul, Ivan Illich).
Regarding "corporate America," there is quite a bit of generalization in the original post. My father recently retired from the company he started working for when he was in his 20s. He worked his way up the proverbial ladder and currently has an ownership stake. Most of his co-workers I remember meeting when I was kid still work there, or retired there. Yes, some companies are bad, but that is not the whole of it.
There is always some degree of navel gazing by "youngsters." My old journals are full of it. Again, the difference is that these days, the navel gazing is public. At least the author is doing some degree of reflection about the state of things.
Regarding "corporate America," there is quite a bit of generalization in the original post. My father recently retired from the company he started working for when he was in his 20s. He worked his way up the proverbial ladder and currently has an ownership stake. Most of his co-workers I remember meeting when I was kid still work there, or retired there. Yes, some companies are bad, but that is not the whole of it.
There is always some degree of navel gazing by "youngsters." My old journals are full of it. Again, the difference is that these days, the navel gazing is public. At least the author is doing some degree of reflection about the state of things.
I think you've taken this article the wrong way - you seem to consider it an attack on your generation.
Generalities hold truths, and while everyone is an outlier to a certain extent, a lot of the points in this essay are pretty valid, the loss of trust in corporate entities is something that will change the way in which companies are structured.
Generations _do_ exist, even if they are a fuzzy concept - without the idea of the baby boomers we'd have a hard time explaining a lot of socio-political movements and changes.
You can read this article as whining, and you obviously did, or you can look at it as a thoughtful reasoning of some of the emergent properties of an era's psyche, it isn't an attack on another generation.
Generalities hold truths, and while everyone is an outlier to a certain extent, a lot of the points in this essay are pretty valid, the loss of trust in corporate entities is something that will change the way in which companies are structured.
Generations _do_ exist, even if they are a fuzzy concept - without the idea of the baby boomers we'd have a hard time explaining a lot of socio-political movements and changes.
You can read this article as whining, and you obviously did, or you can look at it as a thoughtful reasoning of some of the emergent properties of an era's psyche, it isn't an attack on another generation.
I have read dozens of articles lately about how lazy young people are today. This is the first article I have read that attempts to defend young people. The author made a lot of good points and did so with an up beat attitude.
Overall it was a good article. You can attack it for generalizing, but that is a low blow, you can attack any age-based observation piece for generalizing.
I think it is funny that this is an uplifting article about how tough young people have it (we got a bad hand but we'll get through it), and the top post is a cynical comment from (what I assume to be) an older guy.
Overall it was a good article. You can attack it for generalizing, but that is a low blow, you can attack any age-based observation piece for generalizing.
I think it is funny that this is an uplifting article about how tough young people have it (we got a bad hand but we'll get through it), and the top post is a cynical comment from (what I assume to be) an older guy.
And that generation grew up to become the very people they hate.
It's entirely possible Tony Hayward was marching around his university campus about environmental issues in the 80s before turning into the frakking cunt he is considered today.
It's entirely possible Tony Hayward was marching around his university campus about environmental issues in the 80s before turning into the frakking cunt he is considered today.
Wow, some twenty something's have no idea what life was like in past generations. Or in the present generation overseas.
You unthinkingly jumped through all the meaningless hoops put in front of you and still can't find a job you like? You (and by "you", I mean "someone else the same age as you") joined the military and had a much lower chance of being injured or killed than the person of your parent's generation who was forced to join the military whether they wanted to or not? Your job got outsourced to some other twenty something, who doesn't have to live in poverty anymore?
(I know, a guy named Gupta or Tolentino doesn't deserve a job as much as a precious flower like yourself.)
Attention, "Mass Communication" students of my generation: STFU. The only people had it better than you are people who are a few years older/younger than you who got lucky and timed the recession better.
You unthinkingly jumped through all the meaningless hoops put in front of you and still can't find a job you like? You (and by "you", I mean "someone else the same age as you") joined the military and had a much lower chance of being injured or killed than the person of your parent's generation who was forced to join the military whether they wanted to or not? Your job got outsourced to some other twenty something, who doesn't have to live in poverty anymore?
(I know, a guy named Gupta or Tolentino doesn't deserve a job as much as a precious flower like yourself.)
Attention, "Mass Communication" students of my generation: STFU. The only people had it better than you are people who are a few years older/younger than you who got lucky and timed the recession better.
You joined the military and had a much lower chance of being injured or killed than the person of your parent's generation who was forced to join the military whether they wanted to or not?
I have no idea what you're talking about here. 25-35 years ago there were virtually no wars, there was a near zero chance of getting killed in the military. Whereas now, there are very reasonable chances for soldiers to get shipped to fight "terror" and get injured.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. 25-35 years ago there were virtually no wars, there was a near zero chance of getting killed in the military. Whereas now, there are very reasonable chances for soldiers to get shipped to fight "terror" and get injured.
I was implicitly assuming his parents generation is the same as mine (my dad was of vietnam age). However, after some thought, I realize I'm an edge case (I'm at the high end of the 20-somethings, my dad was 32 when I was born). My mistake.
Maybe, but there was the ongoing Cold War - which got very close to going very hot indeed in '83:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83
True, but the risk of getting injured in the Cold War was significantly lower than what we see today in warzones.
I'm probably having a bit of a downer on the subject as I watched Threads last night - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/
While quite possibly the least cheerful film ever made - it was based on a UK military planning exercise (Square Leg) that was actually pretty optimistic. In the optimistic version - only 90% of the population of the UK is killed, in the realistic ones it is much worse.
While quite possibly the least cheerful film ever made - it was based on a UK military planning exercise (Square Leg) that was actually pretty optimistic. In the optimistic version - only 90% of the population of the UK is killed, in the realistic ones it is much worse.
That's not clear. US military deaths in the 1980s were higher than in the 2000s, in spite of the fact that the active military in the 2000s was considerably larger.
The active military was ~2.1 million in the 80's as opposed to ~1.4 million now. The death _rate_ in the early 1980's was slightly lower than the death rate today.
Of course, the active military in the early 1980's had a ridiculously high accident rate. It would be a fairer comparison to look at the mid-to-late 90's. In the link below you can see that the death rate for active duty soldiers was about half of what it is today.
DOD numbers: (http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/death_Rates.p...)
Of course, the active military in the early 1980's had a ridiculously high accident rate. It would be a fairer comparison to look at the mid-to-late 90's. In the link below you can see that the death rate for active duty soldiers was about half of what it is today.
DOD numbers: (http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/death_Rates.p...)
Isn't the comparison supposed to be to his parent's generation? They would have been in the military in the 80's.
All fair criticisms to the points brought up in the post. I was nodding all the way to your last sentence, where I think you missed the mark.
It isn't true that this generation of twenty-somethings has it better than most. In the US specifically real wages have been declining since the early 80's, even as productivity has boomed. The economic benefits of automation and computerization have gone disproportionately to the top of the income ladder. The recession has little to do with the sentiments the OP expressed. In fact, the decline in housing prices, as crass as that may sound, is a form of wealth transfer to the current generation of twenty-somethings as they will be able to get a house cheaper than what their parents would have paid for it a decade ago. I think the point the OP was getting at was that this is a generation more aware of an economic reality that is worse than it was twenty years ago. This perception is correct, however misguided some of the other points may be.
It isn't true that this generation of twenty-somethings has it better than most. In the US specifically real wages have been declining since the early 80's, even as productivity has boomed. The economic benefits of automation and computerization have gone disproportionately to the top of the income ladder. The recession has little to do with the sentiments the OP expressed. In fact, the decline in housing prices, as crass as that may sound, is a form of wealth transfer to the current generation of twenty-somethings as they will be able to get a house cheaper than what their parents would have paid for it a decade ago. I think the point the OP was getting at was that this is a generation more aware of an economic reality that is worse than it was twenty years ago. This perception is correct, however misguided some of the other points may be.
I'd like to see evidence that real wages have been declining. (Note: I'm not asking about CPI-adjusted wages, since I think CPI doesn't reflect real prices very well. )
People of my generation, in terms of goods and services, are considerably richer than in my parent's generation. This is true for both the rich and poor - the poor today tend to have more material goods and services than the middle class of the 70's. If real wages (i.e., wages measured in terms of the stuff they could purchase) were going down, that would be impossible.
Can you name a single good or service [1] which fewer people today have than in my parent's generation?
[1] Note: I'm asking about specific goods or services, not categories of goods or services, since the composition of a category may change over time. E.g., compare land line 1970/1980 to land line 2010, not "telecom 1970" to "telecom 2010", since "telecom 2010" is much broader than "telecom 1970".
People of my generation, in terms of goods and services, are considerably richer than in my parent's generation. This is true for both the rich and poor - the poor today tend to have more material goods and services than the middle class of the 70's. If real wages (i.e., wages measured in terms of the stuff they could purchase) were going down, that would be impossible.
Can you name a single good or service [1] which fewer people today have than in my parent's generation?
[1] Note: I'm asking about specific goods or services, not categories of goods or services, since the composition of a category may change over time. E.g., compare land line 1970/1980 to land line 2010, not "telecom 1970" to "telecom 2010", since "telecom 2010" is much broader than "telecom 1970".
I stand corrected. They have not declined nationally, they've stagnated. If you search for it you'll get the data, but here's a supporting quote:
...from 1973 to 2005... real hourly wages of those in the 90th percentile—where most people have college or advanced degrees—rose by 30 percent or more... among this top 10 percent, the growth was heavily concentrated at the very tip of the top, that is, the top 1 percent. This includes the people who earn the very highest salaries in the U.S. economy, like sports and entertainment stars, investment bankers and venture capitalists, corporate attorneys, and CEOs. In contrast, at the 50th percentile and below—where many people have at most a high school diploma—real wages rose by only 5 to 10 percent
Janet L. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, November 6, 2006
As for CPI-adjusted wages - even though CPI isn't perfect, it's still useful. Certainly better than the anecdotal evidence you're asking for. Also, if anything CPI is under-reported, so CPI-adjusted wages should be considered a conservative estimate, which is all we're after here.
...from 1973 to 2005... real hourly wages of those in the 90th percentile—where most people have college or advanced degrees—rose by 30 percent or more... among this top 10 percent, the growth was heavily concentrated at the very tip of the top, that is, the top 1 percent. This includes the people who earn the very highest salaries in the U.S. economy, like sports and entertainment stars, investment bankers and venture capitalists, corporate attorneys, and CEOs. In contrast, at the 50th percentile and below—where many people have at most a high school diploma—real wages rose by only 5 to 10 percent
Janet L. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, November 6, 2006
As for CPI-adjusted wages - even though CPI isn't perfect, it's still useful. Certainly better than the anecdotal evidence you're asking for. Also, if anything CPI is under-reported, so CPI-adjusted wages should be considered a conservative estimate, which is all we're after here.
> Can you name a single good or service [1] which fewer people today have than in my parent's generation?
Fresh food. Fresh hamburger was less than $1 per pound when I was a kid in the late 70's/early 80's. It's $5 per pound now. A five pound bag of onions used to be $1, now it's $6.
Home ownership is also increasingly out of reach for younger people. In my suburb, the number of homes affordable on 80% of the median income fell from 70% to 40% in the last ten years. In some neighboring suburbs, it's below 25%.
Fresh food. Fresh hamburger was less than $1 per pound when I was a kid in the late 70's/early 80's. It's $5 per pound now. A five pound bag of onions used to be $1, now it's $6.
Home ownership is also increasingly out of reach for younger people. In my suburb, the number of homes affordable on 80% of the median income fell from 70% to 40% in the last ten years. In some neighboring suburbs, it's below 25%.
Home ownership is currently 67.8%. In 1975 it was 64.6%, which means that home ownership is (slightly) more accessible to people today than in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_Sta...
The average home is also 60% bigger.
http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?Ope...
Obviously, these statistics are averaged over the entire country. Some specific regions will behave differently, of course (like your suburb and my hometown).
As for the cost of hamburger, your dollar figure comparisons are irrelevant. I never disputed that green pieces of paper are worth less now than in 1970. However, on average wages in 1975, people spent 13.8% of their income on food. Today they only spend 9.6% and they eat out more.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_Sta...
The average home is also 60% bigger.
http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?Ope...
Obviously, these statistics are averaged over the entire country. Some specific regions will behave differently, of course (like your suburb and my hometown).
As for the cost of hamburger, your dollar figure comparisons are irrelevant. I never disputed that green pieces of paper are worth less now than in 1970. However, on average wages in 1975, people spent 13.8% of their income on food. Today they only spend 9.6% and they eat out more.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data...
> However, on average wages in 1975, people spent 13.8% of their income on food. Today they only spend 9.6% and they eat out more.
People's diets and 'food' in general are different now too though: see high fructose corn syrup and a huge increase in dietary related disease such as obesity and diabetes for example. You aren't comparing apples to apples.
People's diets and 'food' in general are different now too though: see high fructose corn syrup and a huge increase in dietary related disease such as obesity and diabetes for example. You aren't comparing apples to apples.
Very true. Nowadays we have both access to crappy food as well as a larger variety of both fresh and ethnic foods which were not available in the US back then (e.g., avocados were uncommon when I was a kid).
I don't know where to find really good data on this, unfortunately...
I don't know where to find really good data on this, unfortunately...
CPI has changed over time to fit the needs of policy makers. They removed things such as food because the populace wouldn't be pleased if they were told the truth.
The angst expressed in this article is real. These are not just the emo writings of a depressed kid. This is the backlash of the children of the baby boomers against their parents, who grew up during the 60s, espoused free love, peace, and other hippy pop culture platitudes, and yet, became the worst generation, squandering all of the greatest generation's (grandparents) hard won treasure and resources, outsourcing their kids futures to Asia so they could have cheaper electronics. Squandering their national treasure and good standing in the world, that the grandparents fought so hard to win in WW2, so they could fight pointless wars and get enough cheap energy to drive unsustainable land yachts to their unsustainable McMansions in the burbclaves.
There are a lot of reasons that the current generation has to be angry with their parents. They've destroyed the economy, the jobs market, and are well on their way to destroying the planet. They'll retire in the next decade supported by a ponzi scheme (social security) on the backs of their children. The world is less safe, less secure, and more violent because of them.
I can't help but look at Japan in the 90s and think that we are in for a repeat of that. An aging workforce, being constantly downsized and outsourced. No new jobs for college graduates, so they must live with their parents until their 30s or 40s. Property deflation over decades because their parents refused to acknowledge the losses on their overpriced houses. The parallels between Japan in the 90s and US in the 2010s are eerily similar. Study their culture to see what is next.
I don't know what the answer is, but I can tell you that if the younger generations don't get involved in politics, the world will be destroyed by the older generations before we get a chance to truly participate.
There are a lot of reasons that the current generation has to be angry with their parents. They've destroyed the economy, the jobs market, and are well on their way to destroying the planet. They'll retire in the next decade supported by a ponzi scheme (social security) on the backs of their children. The world is less safe, less secure, and more violent because of them.
I can't help but look at Japan in the 90s and think that we are in for a repeat of that. An aging workforce, being constantly downsized and outsourced. No new jobs for college graduates, so they must live with their parents until their 30s or 40s. Property deflation over decades because their parents refused to acknowledge the losses on their overpriced houses. The parallels between Japan in the 90s and US in the 2010s are eerily similar. Study their culture to see what is next.
I don't know what the answer is, but I can tell you that if the younger generations don't get involved in politics, the world will be destroyed by the older generations before we get a chance to truly participate.
"This is the backlash of the children of the baby boomers against their parents, who grew up during the 60s, espoused free love, peace, and other hippy pop culture platitudes, and yet, became the worst generation"
And built the internet. And kept social security afloat for years after it was supposed to become bankrupt (most of those people now using it also paid into it, remember). And did a thousand other things. What makes you think this generation will be any more responsible? Greed and ignorance are basic human conditions and are in no short supply in any generation.
And built the internet. And kept social security afloat for years after it was supposed to become bankrupt (most of those people now using it also paid into it, remember). And did a thousand other things. What makes you think this generation will be any more responsible? Greed and ignorance are basic human conditions and are in no short supply in any generation.
The boomers managed to keep SS afloat simply because their parents chose to have lots of children. It also helped that their parents managed to die younger than the boomers will.
Besides building the Internet, which arguably grew from funding started in the 50s under DARPA (making it more an achievement of their parents, the greatest generation, who funded it), what other legacy or accomplishments have the boomer generation made?
IIRC the funding of Internet research in DARPA is in 60s.
Thanks to boomers in USA. They enable all my fellow people in East Asia lives a better live than my grandparents due to free trade.
Thanks to boomers in USA, now Rock, Punk, Alternatives, Hiphop music styles influence the music styles around the world. I hope you have patience to sit through traditional Japanese style music performance.
Thanks to boomers in USA, now we can have all cool movies from 70s and 80s to watch. All the exploitation movies in 70s are awesome.
Thanks to boomers in USA, now a homosexual/bisexual person can live life with less stigma, I think that's pretty fair to 10% of the population.
Thanks to boomers in USA, they dream about cheap personal computer that we can type rubbish into. Now we can generate so many bits that we never thought that we can capture them before.
Thanks to boomers in USA. They enable all my fellow people in East Asia lives a better live than my grandparents due to free trade.
Thanks to boomers in USA, now Rock, Punk, Alternatives, Hiphop music styles influence the music styles around the world. I hope you have patience to sit through traditional Japanese style music performance.
Thanks to boomers in USA, now we can have all cool movies from 70s and 80s to watch. All the exploitation movies in 70s are awesome.
Thanks to boomers in USA, now a homosexual/bisexual person can live life with less stigma, I think that's pretty fair to 10% of the population.
Thanks to boomers in USA, they dream about cheap personal computer that we can type rubbish into. Now we can generate so many bits that we never thought that we can capture them before.
The problem isn't generational. It's class warfare. Plenty of Baby Boomers have been fucked just as bad as our generation has.
The worst villains are mostly Baby Boomers, but just because that's the generation who is in power, and most people of any generation are out of power.
I don't like ripping on "the Baby Boomers" because it's similar to the "politicians are awful, but my Congressman is great" mentality that keeps incumbents in office despite dysfunction. People who rip on the Baby Boomers will except their parents, and this makes sense, because the villainy isn't generational but class-based. So let's frame this issue in proper terms. There's been a whole lot of chicanery going on, but it's not something that can be placed on one generation.
The worst villains are mostly Baby Boomers, but just because that's the generation who is in power, and most people of any generation are out of power.
I don't like ripping on "the Baby Boomers" because it's similar to the "politicians are awful, but my Congressman is great" mentality that keeps incumbents in office despite dysfunction. People who rip on the Baby Boomers will except their parents, and this makes sense, because the villainy isn't generational but class-based. So let's frame this issue in proper terms. There's been a whole lot of chicanery going on, but it's not something that can be placed on one generation.
Nope, it's pretty much generational, not class-based. Our grandparents built this country into the superpower that it is. They single-handedly built the Interstate highway infrastructure, fought and won WW2, built the manufacturing base of our country's economy, brought peace to Europe, and gave all of this infrastructure to their children.
Since then, their children have squandered national treasure and influence and their greed is dragging the entire economy down.
Since then, their children have squandered national treasure and influence and their greed is dragging the entire economy down.
I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but "their children" who have looted and ruined the nation aren't just Baby Boomers, but mostly conservative, white, well-to-do Baby Boomers-- a small subset of them. I don't think they're any more or less repulsive than their Silent and G.I.-generation counterparts (Strom Thurmond, Robert Bork, Dick Cheney).
Also, the dismantling began in the 1980s when people who are generally considered pre-Boomer were in power. CEOs in that time generally had birthdates in the 1920s and '30s, not '40s and '50s. Reagan was one of the so-called "Greatest Generation".
This is largely a class issue. Baby Boomers did most of the villainy because most of the egregious opportunities presented themselves while they were in power. That's all. They're not any better or worse than the rest of us. (Born in 1983, I have no specific need to defend the Boomers, other than intellectual honesty.)
On the other hand, all generations of the American upper class and right wing have been fucking over all generations of the rest of us for about 30 years.
Also, the dismantling began in the 1980s when people who are generally considered pre-Boomer were in power. CEOs in that time generally had birthdates in the 1920s and '30s, not '40s and '50s. Reagan was one of the so-called "Greatest Generation".
This is largely a class issue. Baby Boomers did most of the villainy because most of the egregious opportunities presented themselves while they were in power. That's all. They're not any better or worse than the rest of us. (Born in 1983, I have no specific need to defend the Boomers, other than intellectual honesty.)
On the other hand, all generations of the American upper class and right wing have been fucking over all generations of the rest of us for about 30 years.
Well put. I agree with what you are saying. It's the subset of boomers that elected Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr, that have really screwed us all. Clinton would have never been elected if it hadn't been for Ross Perot. Essentially, we've had 30 years of "conservatism" and it's completely failed everyone but the top 1%. I use conservatism in air quotes because it's really anything but.
I'm a twenty something and this article embarrasses me. I'm a hard working financially independent person who busted my ass and am getting by just fine. Despite what your mommy and daddy told you, life's tough. I know more people like myself then I do sharing this authors whiny attitude.
I know more people like myself then I do sharing this authors whiny attitude.
Of course you do--just like almost everyone I meet here in SF is a well-paid designer, manager/CEO, or engineer.
Of course you do--just like almost everyone I meet here in SF is a well-paid designer, manager/CEO, or engineer.
This sounds like something anyone could have written when I was 20 without batting an eye. The illusion of a gold watch, retirement, a guaranteed job after college, were all known to be suspect or a complete myth by at least the 1980s. Raised to be aware of the plights of others? I remember "We are the world" and "adopting" impoverished African children with a monthly food stipend. Seriously, there's probably a lot of interesting stuff that could be said about current 20-somethings in general, none of them were presented here.
I agree. The rot in our society started with the Reagan Era. 2008 didn't make it suddenly appear; it just brought it back to the surface. The OP has a just grievance, but she's comparing the world she faces to the Mad Men era of social mobility, when her parents were (probably) children.
If this generation doesn't value or have any faith in the traditional employee/employer relationship, then are new YC companies (founded by people this age) finding ways to create a new employee relationship structure which represents this feeling?
I'm going to answer my own question: Finding a job isn't a problem for smart, technical people. Negotiating might be, but not finding work. In fact, they know they can find another job or even start a company if they have to, so the blogger's sentiments are irrelevant to the HN crowd.
I disagree. What companies consider smart and technical is up for debate.
I think that is already happening to a large extent. More and more people are founding their own little companies to fund side-projects and do consulting work. The workplace of the future may simply be a collection of loosely coupled people writing each other invoices.
Yep, but that's not what I'm asking. Listen to any Mixergy podcast, and what does every company do? Hire people. I want to know what companies founded by gen-Y folks are doing to acknowledge the new thinking about the employer/employee relationship.
Contracting.
It's like a job, but with fewer false promises and expectations.
It's like a job, but with fewer false promises and expectations.
See - Coase's Theory of the Firm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm
I have made it a personal goal to run my future business as flat as possible, and as close to a co-op model as possible, even to my own personal detriment.
Life is a bit different than ideals, and this may not come to pass, but it's a goal.
Life is a bit different than ideals, and this may not come to pass, but it's a goal.
Those may be ideals that we value. But when those values hit the real world, you get The Twentieth Century Motor Company
http://www.conservapedia.com/Twentieth_Century_Motor_Company
http://www.conservapedia.com/Twentieth_Century_Motor_Company
I know it's probably just you copy-pasting a link off Google without being too attentive, but please, please, please do not cite Conservapedia. Take a look at the site homepage to get a taste of why.
I wasn't looking for a site that's got (or hasn't got) any particular reputation. I was looking for a good description of The Twentieth Century Motor Company.
Whatever you might think of Conservapedia (I have no opinion; I'm not Conservative, and don't frequent the site), their content for this article was a better description than I found in the rest of Google's first page of results.
Whatever you might think of Conservapedia (I have no opinion; I'm not Conservative, and don't frequent the site), their content for this article was a better description than I found in the rest of Google's first page of results.
I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic... In the real world, we get fictional companies? I'll be first to say that modern unions are horrible, and there's lots of problems there. But there are also a lot of successful, democratically run business places.
Sorry, my wording was poor. That story is a parable, and I was trying to remind you of it, as a logical consequence of running a business as a co-op.
there are also a lot of successful, democratically run business places
I'm not aware of any. Can you cite examples?
there are also a lot of successful, democratically run business places
I'm not aware of any. Can you cite examples?
Here's a list on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_cooperatives#Uni...
Obviously, this is not comprehensive.
Obviously, this is not comprehensive.
Working as I do on a very old mainframe/financial system, my youngest co-workers are in their 30's. For some reason, all of the under-50 mainframers I encounter are Hispanic or Indian or Asian while all us older guys (yes, 95% guys) are Caucasian. Could it be the tech schools that churn out mainframers only attract the poor, motivated guys who want the quickest path to a job (that was my own route, BTW). The younger immigrant guys are absolute workhorses and they don't bring their politics and environmental consciousness to work. They are worthy heirs to the code edifice we have built. The old guys don't mess around and worry too much either--we're too busy hacking COBOL and assembler and coveting muscle cars and other toys that we can finally afford. Oh, and we who started in IT in the 1970's and 1980's didn't start out with any guarantees, lifetime jobs, or easy rows to hoe. TwentySomething, keep plugging away on your own behalf and don't identify too strongly with the self-pitying ones in your generation.
"It forces an early decision about what’s important in life. No matter how it appears while looking down from 25 years up the corporate ladder, we are decidedly chasing our own ideals, even when things seem hopeless."
Here's my generalization:
From everything I see Generation-Y has been protected from having to make any such decisions. It's been the only generation where it's been OK to live at home with your parents until 30. So how are you making any tough decisions doing that?
When we graduated in the 90's droves of workers were being let go during the recession, only back then we were expected to deal with it an survive without. And we didn't live at home.
When we looked for work, we'd spend everyday going door to door with resumes, or phoning every business in our phone books, but generation-Y signs-up to a bunch of job feeds and rarely do they bother spending an entire day trying.
It maybe that I am in the wrong circles, but every generation-Y I've met, can stay home and video-game in the event things go wrong.
That said, I learned a valuable lesson about 10 years back, and that is no matter how much one likes to think they're not self-centered they are - it's human nature. No matter the generation. And the statements made through-out this article, my own posting, and others, have re-enforced this for me.
Here's my generalization:
From everything I see Generation-Y has been protected from having to make any such decisions. It's been the only generation where it's been OK to live at home with your parents until 30. So how are you making any tough decisions doing that?
When we graduated in the 90's droves of workers were being let go during the recession, only back then we were expected to deal with it an survive without. And we didn't live at home.
When we looked for work, we'd spend everyday going door to door with resumes, or phoning every business in our phone books, but generation-Y signs-up to a bunch of job feeds and rarely do they bother spending an entire day trying.
It maybe that I am in the wrong circles, but every generation-Y I've met, can stay home and video-game in the event things go wrong.
That said, I learned a valuable lesson about 10 years back, and that is no matter how much one likes to think they're not self-centered they are - it's human nature. No matter the generation. And the statements made through-out this article, my own posting, and others, have re-enforced this for me.
There's a lot of macho posturing and 'get off my lawn; in my day, uphill both ways...' comments in this thread, but I'm actually in agreement with this article, I'm 24. It does come across a little whiny, but the point is there: my cohort (I like this word better, see jgrahamc's comment) takes a lot of abuse from people who say that we're lazy, entitled, and don't want to actually work.
What I see is the disparity between my grandparents' generation and my own, that the author alludes to: people used to actually work for companies for 30+ years. Their loyalty was actually repaid. My grandfather worked at a steel mill his entire adult life, never changed jobs, and was paid reasonably and offered a decent pension. Now, we know that model doesn't work anymore, but when employers treat employees as 'resources'... you can't be confused by some push back. This is the entire reason I'm an entrepreneur; I know for a fact that large corporations try to create the same feelings of loyalty in me that my grandfather had, because it's useful to them. But on the other side of the deal, I'll just be tossed aside when it looks like we might not hit quarterly projections.
Fuck that. I'm not going to be loyal to someone who doesn't also respect me; that's an abusive relationship.
I don't have any illusions that my generation will change the world; every generation has thought that, and they all end up selling out. But I do feel that we're defining success differently, our priorities have changed from our parents', and things will be slightly different, even if they're not better.
What I see is the disparity between my grandparents' generation and my own, that the author alludes to: people used to actually work for companies for 30+ years. Their loyalty was actually repaid. My grandfather worked at a steel mill his entire adult life, never changed jobs, and was paid reasonably and offered a decent pension. Now, we know that model doesn't work anymore, but when employers treat employees as 'resources'... you can't be confused by some push back. This is the entire reason I'm an entrepreneur; I know for a fact that large corporations try to create the same feelings of loyalty in me that my grandfather had, because it's useful to them. But on the other side of the deal, I'll just be tossed aside when it looks like we might not hit quarterly projections.
Fuck that. I'm not going to be loyal to someone who doesn't also respect me; that's an abusive relationship.
I don't have any illusions that my generation will change the world; every generation has thought that, and they all end up selling out. But I do feel that we're defining success differently, our priorities have changed from our parents', and things will be slightly different, even if they're not better.
The author really ought to replace "we" with "I".
[deleted]
It's like reading a horoscope in the first person plural - i.e. flattering generalities that make the target feel good/virtuous/whatever.
This could have just as easily been written by a Gen Xer or a Late Boomer. The problem is that people who are 25 now are comparing their economic fortune not to those of people born 10 years earlier, but to those of people born 30 to 50 years earlier, who entered the working world in the Mad Men era.
If you were late Silent or early Boomer (b. 1930 to 1950) you faced an extraordinarily easy career game. Even in advertising, the era's analogue of banking, people left work at 6:00. Unlike those who are young now, you didn't have to bust your ass through college and internships. People dropping acid at Woodstock in '69 could walk into executive-track corporate jobs in '70 and be VPs by '72. They had it really fucking easy. Today you can't get a decent entry-level job with a 3.4 GPA and no internship.
The sunny era, however, didn't end in 2008 or 2001, but much earlier. If you were leaving college in the mid-1970s stagflation era, you'd missed it. There were small, blippy, "booms" localized to a few industries (banking, then oil/gas, then dot-coms, then oil/gas, then real estate, then banking) in the next three decades, but the general prosperity never came back.
If you were late Silent or early Boomer (b. 1930 to 1950) you faced an extraordinarily easy career game. Even in advertising, the era's analogue of banking, people left work at 6:00. Unlike those who are young now, you didn't have to bust your ass through college and internships. People dropping acid at Woodstock in '69 could walk into executive-track corporate jobs in '70 and be VPs by '72. They had it really fucking easy. Today you can't get a decent entry-level job with a 3.4 GPA and no internship.
The sunny era, however, didn't end in 2008 or 2001, but much earlier. If you were leaving college in the mid-1970s stagflation era, you'd missed it. There were small, blippy, "booms" localized to a few industries (banking, then oil/gas, then dot-coms, then oil/gas, then real estate, then banking) in the next three decades, but the general prosperity never came back.
[deleted]
hey but we have iPad and not to mention the cool new iPod Nano [the touch one] , and plus iPhone 4G with FaceTime. Plus we are a better generation we don't buy cheap P.C. rather we have hypnosis inducing Apple Mac Book Pro's.
Get over yourself. Seriously, the entire concept of a generation is false. Generations are a sliding window.
I don't think the things she's talking about are specific to her 'generation'. Environmental consciousness? The US EPA started operation in 1970. I was actively pushing in the UK for things like recycling in the 1980s. Corporate responsibility? How about student boycotts of companies involved in South Africa under apartheid? And the list goes on.
So you think your generation is special. My father's generation grew up with the challenge of rebuilding Europe after the Second World War and seeing Britain's world influence decline, his father's generation fought a war against their own neighbors, his father's generation did the same thing.
Oh, so you've got all this caring about others consciousness and are sad because corporate America can guarantee you a gold watch at 55? My heart bleeds for you.
"But, there’s one really great thing about coming of age in America in an era when things are generally thought to be pretty bad: It forces an early decision about what’s important in life"
Wow, you think you're the first generation to ask themselves what's important in life at a 'young' age. Excuse my while I go John McEnroe (you'll have to Google him youngster): "You cannot be serious"