View Full Version : The War Against Youth (article in Esquire)
Fascinating article in Esquire magazine (http://www.esquire.com/features/young-people-in-the-recession-0412) that shows who is really behaving like an entitled brats!
For a while now, people under 35 have been regularly accused in the media and political forums about being 'entitled' or feeling 'entitled.'
But this article points out some interesting information about who really is entitled -- boomers.
Here are some excerpts, but do read the whole thing. It's fascinating.
In hindsight, Obama's 2008 campaign looks like an indulgent fantasy in which the major conflicts in life simply don't exist. There may be no white America and no black America, no blue-state America and no red-state America, but one thing is clear: There is a young America and there is an old America, and they don't form a community of interest.
One takes from the other. The federal government spends
*$480 billion on Medicare and $68 billion on education.
*Prescription drugs: $62 billion. Head Start: $8 billion.
Across the board, the money flows not to helping the young grow up, but helping the old die comfortably. According to a 2009 Brookings Institution study, "The United States spends 2.4 times as much on the elderly as on children, measured on a per capita basis, with the ratio rising to 7 to 1 if looking just at the federal budget."
The biggest boondoggle of all is Social Security. The management of entitlement programs, already weighted heavily in favor of the older population, has a very specific terminal point that coincides neatly with the Boomers' deaths. The 2011 report by the Social Security trustees estimates that, under its current administration, the fund will run out in 2036, so there's just enough to get the oldest Boomers to age ninety.
spacing for emphasis and italics are mine.
Many claim that the young deserve their fate: They're entitled, they have too many choices. They don't know what they want. They're getting themselves into debt. They don't know how good they have it.
These criticisms are convenient, but also demonstrably incorrect. Defining generations by cultural attributes or values, almost always done with unrepentant shallowness, is the stupidest thing that commentators do. However, a recent study from the National Center for Education Statistics comparing high school seniors in 2004 (who are in their mid-twenties today) with high school seniors in 1972 (now in their late fifties) is useful and practical.
The breakdown is rather stark:
Two thirds of the Boomers thought "being able to give their children better opportunities" was important; 8 percent wanted to live close to their parents; 18 percent believed that making money mattered; 27 percent cared about social problems.
The students in 2004: 83 percent claimed that the opportunities of their children were very important; 25 percent wanted to live close to their parents; 35 percent were serious about making money; and 20 percent cared about social problems.
Compared with their parents, high school kids who graduated from college into the teeth of the recession are a Republican fantasy. They want a good job in order to raise a family, and it's exactly that arrangement that is going to be denied them. The deal they were promised, that if you work hard and make smart choices you will have a good life, is not working out. A Great Disappointment will no doubt follow.
spacing and italics for emphasis, mine.
A more profound shift is under way, though. Currently the average American parent spends 10 percent of his or her annual income on their adult children, regardless of income. Meanwhile, one in four young Americans recently moved back home with their parents after living apart. Calling them the Boomerang generation implies that it's the irresponsible, feckless children who don't have it together enough to leave the nest. But many children who live at home have jobs. So we have children living with their parents after they have income, just like they did in the early parts of the twentieth century and before. The idea of youth as a time of freedom and self-discovery will last exactly one generation, it seems.
The protesters, the occupiers, the kids who screamed themselves hoarse in the parks of New York and Oakland last year have spent the winter nestled underground nurturing their strategies. Has there ever been a movement so full of people who don't want to be there, who would rather be working?
Around the world, the response to chronic youth unemployment has been consistently traditional. The Arab world takes to the streets the way it did in the 1950s. Italy returns to its antique paterfamilias. England goes into its standard mode of underclass rioting. And what's happening in the United States would be instantly recognizable to any progressive of the 1930s.
By bus and train and car pool, they will follow the gerontocracy to Tampa and Charlotte, the cities with the utter misfortune of hosting the presidential nominating conventions. Then we'll see if the people inside the convention centers can find the youth anything better to do.
We'll see then how the flowers of rage, planted and nurtured so carelessly for three decades, have sprung up and who will harvest them.
I quoted from all three pages -- still worth reading -- there are some great facts outlined in the article as well such as net worth of boomers vs their parents in 1980s vs people under 35 today as compared to their parents.
And of course, that last statement is telling.
Honestly, I get really darn tired of being called lazy and entitled for wanting things that most people had just a few short years ago -- like bankruptcy protection for private student loans -- something that existed for boomers until the mid-90s, when most of the kids-of-boomers were starting to graduate from school. Or more opportunities for social service to help with the federal loans -- according to the article, Americorps programs were cut and had to turn away 3/4 of the applicants!
That's a lot of young people who want to SERVE their country and help fight poverty but get TURNED AWAY because there isn't enough funding for the program. Because we don't want to fund entitled brats, do we?
I thought for a good day before posting this, largely because I didn't want to fuss about it anymore. I mean, honestly, I feel -- as so many people my age and younger do -- that we are shouting into the wind. When we point all of this out, we are just called "entitled brats" and so on.
And so, as the article says. . .
And we will not talk about any of it. We will keep mum. We will hold our tongues lest we seem ageist, lest we seem bitter, lest we seem out of touch, lest we seem pessimistic, lest we seem divisive.
I've read a couple of good articles about how the Boomers should move aside and act more selflessly so the young can prosper. I agree with them--and I'm a boomer.
But it's hard to tell people certain things: Like, "forget the life-saving medical procedure--you've lived a good life, just roll over and die." I can see that the elderly are going to eat up tons of resources while they continually attempt to cheat death, but what do you do? Ration health care in favor of the young?
Then there's Social Security. I remember telling some of my peers that if I had enough money to retire, I'd give back the Social Security, because it was meant to be a safety net--not an entitlement. Well, they looked at me as if I had just started speaking Chinese.. it simply did not compute.
And what about jobs? I will need to work until I'm 70 or more, the way I see it. What if someone says, sorry--you had your chance at employment and now we need to give your job to a thirty-something. I'm hoping I can trust the democratic free-enterprise system and if someone sees value in an old fogie like me, they'll hire me.
I'm not sure starting a war pitting the young against the old is going to be productive, but I do think we need to revisit our policies and entitlement programs.
The article is very thought-provoking. I think Baby Boomers can whine as well as anyone, but I'll leave it to you young-uns to figure it all out in terms of what's fair and who should get what--you have the power.
We'll see then how the flowers of rage, planted and nurtured so carelessly for three decades, have sprung up and who will harvest them.
http://www.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/12-soylent-green-poster.jpg
http://makeiteighteh.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/logans-run.jpg
http://nextlol.com/images/13170-get-off-my-lawn.jpg
By bus and train and car pool, they will follow the gerontocracy to Tampa and Charlotte, the cities with the utter misfortune of hosting the presidential nominating conventions. Then we'll see if the people inside the convention centers can find the youth anything better to do.
We'll see then how the flowers of rage, planted and nurtured so carelessly for three decades, have sprung up and who will harvest them.
Statements like the quote above have me curious, Zoebird. Are you/they/anyone suggesting a bit of a revolution, something akin to 1968? As I recall there were political conventions and more than a bit of unrest in a younger generation that all clashed in that year.
Well, first of all, boomers didn't take out loans for school for the most part. We worked our butts through school, so saying we 'enjoyed' bankruptcy protection for school loans is kind of irrelevant. But, kids today must take out loans at some point if they want to pursue higher learning. It is a mess, and a house of cards that will collapse eventually, but blaming boomers for it isn't really fair or productive.
The economy is bad right now, but things are improving, slowly. So it has been throughout history as we cycle through boom and bust. It's just a good thing all those selfish, petty, uncaring boomers were there with a home to offer the young, not-complaining, hard working, selfless recent graduates.;)
I know things seem just awful right now. But the economy will get better. It may not resemble the economy of the last 3 decades, or the last century, but it will move forward. Think about the great depression. From where we sit it was very bad, but they got through it and then the country enjoyed one of the greatest booms we have ever seen. We can see that from here, but I guarantee you those who were living it felt like they would never recover and their lives would never be good. I'm not saying we will follow this path exactly, but things rarely stay as they are. As this world and country move forward, people will find their place...or not, but it won't be the boomers fault. If you truly think all we did was sit on our butts and smoke dope, take a little tour through our history.
I guess I'm having a bit of trouble seeing why you complain so. You have found your niche. You are successful. You are building your own dream in a frankly beautiful country. The world is flat, and you of all people should know that. Blame this on the tough economy, not your parents.
pssst..Soylent Green is PEOPLE!
It says something about the hysterical age we live in that everyone aspiring to victim status declares “war” on themselves. Somebody balks at forcing a Catholic University to spring for birth control pills? It’s a “war on women”! Depending who you listen to, public educators are committed to a two-front war against both girls and boys. I’m hearing about wars on guns, on moms, on Christmas, on salt.
I’m a peaceable fellow, not to mention a demonstrably poor marksman. My military experience was largely limited to spending more money than the Soviets (which proved to be a suprisingly effective strategy, it turns out). But I would like to see a pitiless war of extermination against this ridiculous cliché.
It wouldn't have been my choice for words -- it's in the title of the article. And yes, it's used to sell articles.
That being said, the author's choice of words does not negate the facts or argument that she presents.
Yes, God forbid we look at the article's content. Lets just attack the choice of words or give the good old "boomers are better, we already did it -- see our movies? see our actions in chicago back then!"
Seriously. It's a wonder that we can even talk about things.
How about this: go to the article -- read just the big font statistics and then, at the bottom of each page, read how politics are seeking to actively disenfranchise people under 25.
ApatheticNoMore
4-3-12, 9:46pm
Statements like the quote above have me curious, Zoebird. Are you/they/anyone suggesting a bit of a revolution, something akin to 1968? As I recall there were political conventions and more than a bit of unrest in a younger generation that all clashed in that year.
Yes I very much doubt that is possible anymore. Really some facts:
1) Protestors these days are sent MILES away from political conventions, like 6 miles or so away from the convention (not even really walking distance) to protest. THAT is the status of political protest these days. "Free speech zones"
2) I frankly think at this point it might actually be illegal to protest anywhere near the convention (illegal with up to a 1 year jail sentence!). I think this is the gist of H.R. 347 (I read it, but I forget the details, I'd need to review. Not being a lawyer I also read the ACLU on this)
3) I've heard that conventions will have a MASSIVE police presence
Yes, God forbid we look at the article's content. Lets just attack the choice of words or give the good old "boomers are better, we already did it -- see our movies? see our actions in chicago back then!"
Seriously. It's a wonder that we can even talk about things.
How about this: go to the article -- read just the big font statistics and then, at the bottom of each page, read how politics are seeking to actively disenfranchise people under 25.
I don't think it's a matter of 'boomers are better' or 'new graduates are better'. This is an age old argument. I'll bet you'd be surprised to find that we boomers blamed OUR parents generation for all the country's ills.
I'm not saying boomers were better, I'm just saying each generation needs to find their own way in an ever changing world. We each (generation) have to work with the world we are handed. We can blame the previous generation (rightly or wrongly) or we can just get on with it. Personally, I know many young adults and I'm not a bit worried at handing it over to them. I feel confident they will be good stewards of our country/world.
Do we, boomers, expect more of our country? You bet. And maybe this is a clue to conservatives, we know our country is capable of more. We can have universal health care, and SS (with universal health care, medicare and medicaid kind of go away as we are all under the same umbrella. A fact that many just kind of forget) and all the perks that a good, progressive nation can give. But this costs. And until the young understand that they must pay while young to benefit when old, it will be a fight. See, i realise most young people can't imagine themselves as older, but it does happen. For most it does happen, and it happens so suddenly, you just wake up one day and you are older. And you haven't saved a million, like you planned for, and you aren't as healthy as you planned for. NO, you may not need a heart transplant, but stuff just creeps up on you. Little things that pile up to where it's a pill here, and a pill there, and maybe a few more tests, and you realize you're old.
Young people don't get the lion's share of help because, for the most part, they don't need the lion's share of help. They are young and strong and have many many good strong years ahead of them. Someday they will need the bigger share, and they will be grateful for the young coming up to help them, who , in their turn, will need it. This is the way it has always been. The young help the older and the young, in turn, will need the help. Think of the US as a village. We help and support our elderly because someday we will be the elderly. I know it's hard to imagine but someday you too will be 70.
I know you say read the article but frankly, I'm not interested in some article that blames the boomers for the countries ills. Your excerpts, if representative of the article, let me know the gist of the article.
ApatheticNoMore
4-3-12, 9:57pm
And what's happening in the United States would be instantly recognizable to any progressive of the 1930s.
By bus and train and car pool, they will follow the gerontocracy to Tampa and Charlotte, the cities with the utter misfortune of hosting the presidential nominating conventions. Then we'll see if the people inside the convention centers can find the youth anything better to do.
again it's not the 1930's, they will be nowhere near the conventions (see my comments previously)
Now the exerpts conveniently forgot a whole generation that is not boomers and not under 35, a generation that always seems to be conveniently forgot and whom social security is still scheduled to run out for (talking about my generation - gen X).
Honestly, I get really darn tired of being called lazy and entitled for wanting things that most people had just a few short years ago -- like bankruptcy protection for private student loans -- something that existed for boomers until the mid-90s, when most of the kids-of-boomers were starting to graduate from school. Or more opportunities for social service to help with the federal loans -- according to the article, Americorps programs were cut and had to turn away 3/4 of the applicants!
Personally I'd like an affordable house in California (like my parents had), and I'd also like a pony ..... not gonna happen.
I'm not sure starting a war pitting the young against the old is going to be productive
+1 Plus if you're kind of in the middle, you know that unmentionable generation, you actually do hope for a chance at the social security system you have been paying in to for over a decade. Hope for, not expect, believe me I absolutely do not expect it. I mean will the world economy have crashed by then? Will the dollar? Will natural resources have crashed by then? What about the climate? Expectations, oh ha. No ............
And the young against the old thing is FALSE anyway, I mean suppose we got rid of all social security (waved the wand, gone tommorow - admitedly too extreme to be probable political reality - though Obama has said cuts are on the table, he seems to want them). OK so in this hypothetical, Social Security is gone, then how many younger people would now or in a decade or so be having to economically provide for thier parents without the buffer of Social Security? Oh so something like that would affect younger people too? Yep .....
And the young against the old thing is FALSE anyway...
It's just another way of dividing us all against each other.
I'm wondering though, should I expect violence from Gen X/Y/Zers when I go to the convention?
The taxes boomers paid into the system on an average percentage of income was much higher than present tax rates. Maybe the boomers are just harvesting their investments from higher tax rates. Entitlements, unlike the word might imply, do not grow on trees. With no one wanting to increase tax rates to previous historic levels, there are going to be less entitlements. It seems like simple math to me, but is probably complicated.
ApatheticNoMore
4-3-12, 11:13pm
The taxes boomers paid into the system on an average percentage of income was much higher than present tax rates.
You know I actually did an analysis on this (with BLS inflation adjustments for income) and tax rates on a middle class person really haven't changed much. Not when you look at the full tax rates including Medicare and Social Security taxes. Of course I think I did this before Obama's payroll taxes. So Obama's payroll taxes may have meant middle classes taxes are actually lower. I didn't assume any deductions beyond the standard (I don't have any). And I didn't add in state taxes at all (but oh boy have THOSE increased! that could offset quite a lot of federal decreases!)
So if you are trying to make the claim that Obama's lowering of payroll tax rates is a problem - fine I don't quibble with that. I agree. I never supported that stupid tax cut. Blame Obama? Fine with me :) But the Bush income tax cuts by themselves did not reduce tax rates on the middle class income at all before that point because they were offset by several decades of payroll tax increases. Now if you want to talk capital gains you may have a point but most people do not get most of their income from capital gains. I was talking wage income.
Apathetic no more, do you happen to know how it would work out if you use an average tax rate, one that includes all tax brackets, rather than just the middle class? It's my understanding that taxes for the upper tax brackets are what have changed. And go back before Reaganomics.
ApatheticNoMore
4-3-12, 11:40pm
Oh yea upper class brackets are less.
I was quibbling with this:
The taxes boomers paid into the system on an average percentage of income was much higher than present tax rates. Maybe the boomers are just harvesting their investments from higher tax rates.
because it makes it sound like young person today just doesn't deserve Social Security because they aren't paying enough taxes (if only he was willing to pay taxes then he too could harvest benefits in the future, but since he wants to have such low taxes too bad). When Joe Middleclass 2012 is probably paying the same rate of taxes (or was before the Obama tax cuts at least) as Joe Middleclass 1970. But like I said upper income people are paying less, which isn't going to do a darn bit of good for Joe Middleclass when there is no Social Security for him.
Oh the answer I wanted to find was that taxes have gone up on the middle class, so I could you know blame the horrible high cost of living of everything these days :), but the answer I found was surprisingly little change.
I'm sorry if I implied that a young person doesn't deserve SS because they didn't pay enough taxes. The point I was hoping to make was that collectively boomers have averaged higher tax rates. Rather than breaking this down into gen-x vs boomer middle class, I was think more about the politics of tax structure and how that has changed in the last 20 or 30 years.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/10/31/business/1031-biz-webLEONHARDTcx.gif
ApatheticNoMore
4-4-12, 12:56am
Ok Rogar fair enough.
Thinking back to the main topic of this thread and the whole "age war" some would like to start and how ridiculous it is: it is true I would not want to be a new graduate just getting out in the world today looking for my first real job. I really don't envy them! But I also would not want to be an unemployed person in say my 50's right now.
I was unemployed for awhile, I got hired, I probably got hired far easier than a person a couple of decades older would. I happen to think AGE DISCRIMINATION in hiring is real. It can start for a woman in her mid 40s and programs designed to help the unemployed look for work have classes in things like "overcoming age discrimination for ages 45 and up" - sadly some say for age 40 and up!). The long term unemployed - 2 years without work and so on - in my anecdotal experience are disproportionately those a little older (although again not great for those fresh out in the world either). But those in their 40s, 50s, 60s etc. had time to save and accumulate money when times were good? Yes fair enough, but not all of them ever really earned that great incomes either etc.. But yes perhaps many should have saved more, but now they are in trouble (and besides even if one has savings, if that savings *IS* one's retirement, cashing it out to live when your not ready financially to retire yet, but are considered "too old" to work, is not great. I mean granted there might be a few more options at that age for financing something like schooling (borrowing against one's 401k maybe, I'd do that if I had to), but it all depends on someone eventually hiring an "old person" which is where they face discrimination).
I graduated from college in a field that is difficult to find work in. Over a course of months I put on a suit and tie and hand delivered about 100 resumes in three cities trying to schedule appointments with the right people if possible. Plus mailing out another hundred or so out of state. It is interesting how now, with the "connected" generation you don't even have to leave the computer to apply for work. After landing mt first job I was employed continuously with different companies, but in my early fifties could sense a subtle push out the door to make way for young workers who would do the job for less. My final employer had more than one age discrimination suit filed against them as they pushed older workers out. I was actually ready to take early retirement but others who had lived a larger lifestyle found themselves in unemployable and in trouble.
My take on the age war thing is that there is no winner or looser. Times have changed and things are different. Sometimes life is hard.
It wouldn't have been my choice for words -- it's in the title of the article. And yes, it's used to sell articles.
That being said, the author's choice of words does not negate the facts or argument that she presents.
Basically she argues that the division of taxpayer spoils be skewed more toward the young. It's a common claim in identity politics, where not handing out free stuff is taken as evidence of hostility. She's just looking to champion yet another category of victim.
flowerseverywhere
4-4-12, 10:17am
Fascinating article in Esquire magazine (http://www.esquire.com/features/young-people-in-the-recession-0412) that shows who is really behaving like an entitled brats!
For a while now, people under 35 have been regularly accused in the media and political forums about being 'entitled' or feeling 'entitled.'
But this article points out some interesting information about who really is entitled -- boomers.
I read the article and I saw no suggestions to make things better than sit around and fume. I was distracted by the first line you wrote about "brats."
The system is not right, I think we will all agree. Generation after generation of politicians of both parties have not been good stewards of our money, that I think we will all agree. We have trodden down a path of unfunded wars, ridiculous amounts of money being lent for houses and education at ridiculous interest rates, and an ever increasing life expectancy. Many boomers are suffering as well, as they have been downsized and outsourced- many seniors have no hope of retiring and there are many in the middle, too young for medicare and they cannot find a job with health benefits or cannot afford the policies. Although I am told my SS benefits won't be touched because I am too old don't think for one minute I believe it. I truly believe that going forward the benefits will be slowly chipped away in little ways (cost of living increases, tax rules etc.) and by the time you are in your sixties there is no more time to make it up, even if you can get a job. This is kind of like a keg of powder waiting for the fuse to be lit.
So we have two choices. We can try to figure out who are the victims (then what are we supposed to do) or we can band together and try to change the system which is clearly broken.
I vote for the latter.
So how can we change the system to benefit us all?
When there are a limited number of resources it's necessary to allocate them to their most productive uses. In the past all resources were much more scarce. Even food and water were once potentially scarce items. Today our scarce resource is simply money. The bottom line, is it more productive and useful for a society to spend $100,000 providing a college education to a young person who can then go out and get a good job and be part of helping the economy grow, or is it better to spend $100,000 on an organ transplant operation for an 80 year old retiree? If we have $200,000 to spend then great, we can afford both. The problem is that we don't have $200,000. And currently we're spending that $100,000 on the organ transplant and maybe $20,000 on the education.
This is an age old argument. I'll bet you'd be surprised to find that we boomers blamed OUR parents generation for all the country's ills.
Exactly. That was the basis of my question to Zoebird; to see if her generation was looking to come up with their own version of 1968. That was a pivotal year for boomers. I suspect that if her generation is going to do anything it would look more like a social media driven Arab Spring than the protests of 44 years ago, but that would not change the validity of a movement.
The feeling I have, and this is only a gut feeling, is that there is a decided shift away from engagement in the younger generations. It's not across the board, but I just don't see or hear about a real upswing in the involvement of Gens X and Y. Those generations seem passive which, given the energy of youth, is sad. The boomers were, if nothing else, very energetic and engaged in their youth. They fought and rallied in HUGE numbers against segregation and war, went back to the land, had a sexual revolution, gave the world whole new classes of literature and music and drugs, completely shook up the political process in the US, changed the college experience forever and on and on. It wasn't necessarily all positive, no movement guided by youth with no experience would be, but it was certainly passionate. I just don't see a passion like that or that kind of energy from Gens X & Y. Am I missing it? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but what I see is more and more examples like the article Zoebird posted that just claim victimization, but offer no solution. I don't believe they are victims of any more than their own way of thinking, but even if they are the only way to break free is to get up and DO something about it. Is there a plan of action in the works?
ETA: To be clear, what I see as disengaged is in NO way saying the younger generations are slackers. I don't think they are. The two concepts are simply not related. OTOH, it is not the same as being disenfranchised. There could be a relationship if it is shown that X&Y really are disenfranchised, but that is yet to be determined.
Is there a plan of action in the works?
Apparently the plan is to not-so-subtly threaten people...
By bus and train and car pool, they will follow the gerontocracy to Tampa and Charlotte, the cities with the utter misfortune of hosting the presidential nominating conventions. Then we'll see if the people inside the convention centers can find the youth anything better to do.
We'll see then how the flowers of rage, planted and nurtured so carelessly for three decades, have sprung up and who will harvest them.
Is there a plan of action in the works?
Gregg, I don't think my generation is disengaged. I will be 34 this year, so I am on the older end of that generation. For one thing, I think the internet has drastically changed the way people get their message heard. It's a more efficient method of reaching a wider audience than protesting, which really doesn't garner the same kind of attention it seemed to once-upon-a-time. Media is changing. It's not so much about attracting the attention of the mainstream media outlets, which requires a big "to-do" that gives them something to chew on and show pictures of. A lot of people spread the word about their causes via social networking and YouTube. You can get more people to watch your viral YouTube video than you could ever get to witness your actual demonstration and you aren't relying on mainstream media outlets to fairly and accurately report on your activities. You have more control of the message.
What I have observed from my generation and younger people is that we tend to feel like government, at least at the federal level, is largely beyond our sphere of influence. It's like this big faceless entity and it seems like, for the most part, people get elected by selling their soul to someone. Which someone that is varies by party and person, but it takes a lot of money to get a dog in that fight.
Because of that, and because of the changes the internet has brought about, I see a lot of younger people trying to "be the change" as they say. It may not be loud and boisterous, but it's something. I know a whole lot of young people who are approaching their life and decision making with a lot of consciousness and deliberately making decisions they hope will, in some way, create a better future from the ground up.
That said, I don't feel like a victim. Things are hard, yes, but that's been true most of human history. It might have been nice to side-step it, but it is what it is and it could certainly be worse. When I start to feel bad about what we face, I try to think of what life was like for my various ancestors, like what it was like for my pioneer ancestors to brave these Minnesota winters with none of our modern conveniences, or the Jewish great-grandparents from Germany I know nothing about because they had to leave their baby with strangers and hope he'd find a better life someday. Whatever life deals me, I'll make the best of it.
ApatheticNoMore
4-4-12, 12:37pm
The feeling I have, and this is only a gut feeling, is that there is a decided shift away from engagement in the younger generations. It's not across the board, but I just don't see or hear about a real upswing in the involvement of Gens X and Y.
Um the revolution will not be televised. :) Your not going to hear about anything via the mainstream media, it is completly corrupt. But what I think the case is is those that are involved are involved and those that are not, aren't. Was it ever different? Even in 1969? My involvement is mostly just community, don't look for a revolution from this weary tired gen Xer (but ocaassional resistence? :)). There are a lot of things that mitigate against say an uprising on a college campus these days say. I bet young people today on average work more hours while going to school than boomers did for instance. But still things like tuition hikes do get protested, and well they should. There are a lot more things that mitigate against a protest at the political conventions, mostly that it is illegal (possibly with up to a years jail sentence) and protest is only allowed miles from any convention. I think the legal environment is harsher than it was. Also another thing that interferes with it is the mainstream media these days is horrible, so many people are not informed about anything. But the truth is out there on the net.
I just don't see a passion like that or that kind of energy from Gens X & Y. Am I missing it?
Well generation X is a bit apathetic, I've never really related to that entirely though I'm an Xer (for one things my parents had kids very late in life - I don't relate to the generations most gen X parents came from - I"m a kid of a WWII gen and a silent gen). I relate more to those a few years younger (gen Y), who seem very community oriented. I like that. I don't really know many millenials, those fresh out of school now. By the way if it's true that less and less young people are getting cars these days (prefering bikes, walking, public transport) that that would be a bit of a revolution after all.
I know a whole lot of young people who are approaching their life and decision making with a lot of consciousness and deliberately making decisions they hope will, in some way, create a better future from the ground up.
I like to base my opinions about these things on what I see around me. I work at a graduate school and see first hand the passion this age group (23-30ish) has for changing their world for the better. The are involved and committed. I also see that many of them have had very comfortable lives due to their boomer parent's hard work. I would like to think we live in a society where we all look out for and respect each other regardless of age. I find myself thinking often that I would now like to slow down and let the younger generation take the reins offering advice when asked. It will be their world soon enough.
ApatheticNoMore
4-4-12, 2:07pm
As a gen Xer I feel it never was and never will be our world really. We're always just a shadow, just in between like some invisible middle child, never even mentioned in articles apparently, the jobs we want will always be taken first by boomers who had "more experience" and soon enough by younger people as we become "too old" (40 and up you know is "too old" to work! - and too young for most to retire).
Well, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an avid user of social media, but it does make absolute sense to me that any new revolution will be broadcast that way ala the Arab Spring. Hopefully we can avoid the violence. I'm happy and relieved to hear there is a wider consciousness regarding the impact of our life on others and presumably on the planet as well. It's obviously time for me, and more people in my generation, to start paying more attention to 'alternative' sources of information. Suggestions welcome.
Stella, I promise that the notion of a Federal Government that has grown beyond citizen influence is not limited to your generation. I'm a tail end baby boomer and have felt that way for a long time. That, and the conjoined fiscal issues, is what steers me down a (moderately) conservative path. To be honest the Tea Party really had my interest in the beginning when their emphasis was smaller, more transparent and more responsible government. They've since picked up a lot of folks with social baggage that I do not share, but the original message was intriguing precisely because so many people feel disenfranchised from the government.
Maybe the most logical question we boomers can ask you up and comers is: what kind of world would you like to see? Then: what do you guys need? Closely followed by: what can we do to help?
It's just another way of dividing us all against each other.
I'm wondering though, should I expect violence from Gen X/Y/Zers when I go to the convention?
Hey, if you wanna take this outside, let's take it outside! ;)
ApatheticNoMore
4-4-12, 2:46pm
I cast my lot with localization and community focused movements. It's what appeals to me practically (as being actually doable), ideologically, and personally (it is rewarding).
The federal government, I don't even know, how do you solve a problem like Maria? :) I am sold on the argument that things like climate change require large scale global cooperation, I just don't know how it can be made to happen. Mass protests? Getting money out of politics? Getting money out of politics is NECESSARY if not sufficient for sure. And then what? Carbon taxes, yea something like that might work, if there first was a way to make it happen. But when in our money saturated so called democracy the so called representative of the party of the left (hardy har har) Obama campaigns on more drilling, what our children need is more drilling!! I mean it's beyond absurd, trust me that's not what our children need!!
good grief, obama wants to speed up drilling on public lands (has there ever been a more phony president than Obama?):
http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/morning_call/2012/04/obama-unveils-changes-to-speed-up.html
And then you factor in the reality that the federal government is becoming increasingly totalitarian (and that is real) and that may dovetail with money in politics and may dovetail with the fact they are anticipating some kind of collapse (economic or resource/environmental) and well ... heck if I know what to do with the Federal government. Money out of politics would be a first step.
What all generations can do for the future: the environmental issues, focus on those and everything you find by your long chains of reasoning to be connected to those. It matters more than the deficit etc.. Yes fine the whole economy may strain under deficits and things will suck, but the environmental issues are more important than that, the environment underlies the economy, a livable planet is worth more than dollars being worth something, because even if we have to barter in some crazy future where all currency has become worthless and all countries defaulted on their debts, if we still have soil that produces food etc ..... we will get by by barter. But if we don't have that ...
flowerseverywhere
4-4-12, 4:29pm
APN when you talk about what will do people good and what they need that may not necessarily be what they want. I totally agree with what you have posted but we are so far gone from any cause and effect of personal actions. How many people want jobs at home yet want to get the cheapest goods and foods produced with slave labor god knows where? People are up at arms over gas prices but don't want more drilling, and when I drive most places you don't see carpools but most cars with single drivers.
If you have no health insurance you want a cheap policy that has good coverage. High student loans? forgiveness. Upside down on a house? Government bailout. Old? don't touch my social security or medicare. Have kids? a good school system. The single minded "It's all about me" attitude will surely be the demise of our societies as we poison our land, our water and our souls.
Yeah, it would be nice if we could get to this point in which we could all work together (see the following TED talk--may outwardly look like it's a religious theme, but it's actually quite secular, for people who are put off by religion):
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_humanity_s_stairway_to_self_transce ndence.html
We just aren't in the same boat, and it's making us miserable. I see a lot of anger everywhere, and I just don't see how that particular emotion is going to get us anywhere.
Gregg, I don't doubt that a lot of boomers feel that way too. I know my parents do, and their solution is the same as mine. Do what you can where you are.
ANM I agree with you, especially on this.
I cast my lot with localization and community focused movements. It's what appeals to me practically (as being actually doable), ideologically, and personally (it is rewarding).
Like you, ANM, I don't know what to do about government and corporate corruption either, other than, as I said, doing what I can where I am. Choosing where I spend my money carefully, voting, writing to congress people, community building efforts, supporting charities I believe in with my time and money, raising my kids to have the skills and values I want them to have for the future.
flowerseverywhere, I've read quite a few articles like this (http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1523/Generation-Y-Giving-Cars-a-Pass) that suggest that Gen Y is more likely than others to forgo the car or to focus on fuel efficiency or car sharing as trasportation options. I've similarly read a lot that suggests that Gen Y tends to like smaller housing in more walkable neighborhoods rather than larger homes in Big Box 'burbs. Just like most people here, the younger people I know are pretty aware of the cause and effect of their decisions and are constantly trying to balance a variety of factors and make the most ethical decisions they can within their own particular restraints. Living within this system, most of us have to make compromises of one sort or another.
I find myself getting along quite well with both younger and older people. Maybe it's just where I live and the people I surround myself with, but most people I know have a pretty good attitude. They care about others and the state of the world and they want to do their part to make things better. They are thoughtful and considerate. They may have disagreements on how to accomplish those goals, but there's a lot of common ground there. I feel pretty hopeful, overall.
flowerseverywhere
4-4-12, 7:12pm
Stella, I think you must be very easy to get along with from your postings and maturity for your age.
I'm pretty confident in the belief that every generation up till now has blamed the previous for many of their woes and that the previous has, at the same time, been willing to do almost anything for the new generation. That's just how it works. The vast conspiracy theories regaling us with stories of repression of the young by the old simply make no sense at all. As one generation ages it NEEDS its offspring to be successful and productive. To some it is altruistic support of their kids, to some it is a self serving need of someone to support them in old age. To most its a little bit of both, but either way the goal is the same.
Thanks for the compliment flowerseverywhere! That was nice of you to say.
Gregg, I would agree with you. I think both older and younger generations tend to have their complaints about each other,the younger ones blaming the older ones and the older ones and their "get off my lawn" and "back in my day" complaints, but ultimately we do best when we realize that we are interdependent and act accordingly.
One of the things I've learned about inter-generational communication in combining households with my dad is that we do best when we don't view the things we do for each other as either altruistic or self-serving, but view the things we do to help each other as part of something bigger than ourselves. I think that is a good attitude to have towards society at large, too, a good balance of a sense of responsibility and a gratitude for the contributions of others. It's not a cure-all, but it's a good start.
It's just another way of dividing us all against each other.
I'm wondering though, should I expect violence from Gen X/Y/Zers when I go to the convention?
I agree unreservedly with Bae's first sentence. I exercised my free speech--just as the Occupiers do--demonstrating as a young person and again as a 50-something. Today with the threat of police violence and Supreme Court-approved random strip searches--not to mention decrepitude--I defer to the younger generation, with whom I have absolutely no beef whatever. And I got out of the job market as soon as I could to make room for them. Pitting one group of struggling citizens against another is despicable and transparent, IMO.
ApatheticNoMore
4-5-12, 12:22am
And when the young protest ... (and apparently they do ...)
claims 30 students were protesting tuiton increases and were pepper sprayed:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Santa-Monica-College-Pepper-Spray-Protest-146047645.html
BTW, I really don't think it's anyones obligation to deliberately withdraw from life so younger generations can have at it. "We inherit the earth, but we don't want it, it's been ours since birth we'd like you to know" (gen Xing myself there I think). The world and the right to be part of it is ours at birth, a birthright and is ... so long as one is living and able.
I mean the day when one can't be involved with the world will come eventually anyway, but no need for early retreat. Of course I assume generous motive and concern for the future and not just narrow interest here, so ...... perhaps I assume too much of people in general :) And if one has money to retire and doesn't want to be part of paid employment ... well *that* I understand completely.
One of the things I've learned about inter-generational communication in combining households with my dad is that we do best when we don't view the things we do for each other as either altruistic or self-serving, but view the things we do to help each other as part of something bigger than ourselves. I think that is a good attitude to have towards society at large, too, a good balance of a sense of responsibility and a gratitude for the contributions of others. It's not a cure-all, but it's a good start.
Really, really well said Stella. And I agree. From where I sit the way we prioritize actions is one source of inter-generational friction. It's not that we disagree on what to do so much as what order to do it in (also true for political parties in many cases). I know my priority list did some rearranging somewhere in between my 20s and now, in my 50s. Most of the same line items are there, but my experiences have caused me to rethink the plan of attack.
ANM earlier alluded to the fact that environmental concerns need to be a top priority. Tough to argue with that one when the big view is: no planet = no people. That was certainly my top concern in my 20s when I basically thought everyone should park their cars, plant a garden, join a commune, play guitar and grow hemp (for clothing, of course). The younger set here is a lot more grounded than I was, but I wasn't just a utopian back then, either. At that stage in my life the possibilities and my singular version of reality were all I had really been exposed to. In the 30 odd years since then I've been lucky to get to see how a lot of very different people live. My own vision of how the world can be and how best to get there is now a blend of all that. I think most people work in a similar fashion.
I guess the point is that it will take a combination of the energy and optimism of younger generations and the experience of the older ones to move forward in any kind of meaningful way. Rather than listening to the self-serving voices that would divide us by inducing a "war on youth" we need to be listening to each other.
flowerseverywhere
4-5-12, 10:52am
did anyone see this article in the NY times? It is far from outlining boomers as entitled brats.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/older-women-struggle-to-make-ends-meet/?ref=business
"Sixty percent of women in the United States who are 65 or older do not have enough income to cover basic expenses without help, even if they are married, according to the report.
That is compared to 41 percent of men in that age group.
The report compares income, not including food stamps or help with utility bills, to very basic monthly expenses for housing, food, transportation and health care."
the statistics were taken from this article
http://www.wowonline.org/documents/OlderAmericansGenderbriefFINAL.pdf
Greg your last line of your post is so true. We are all in this boat together. Instead of some people rowing and some people not we all need to pick up an oar. Surely the government has run out of oars to put in the water for all of us.
Sorry guys!
I bailed on this one because we got hit with a lot of great work over the last two weeks (or whenever I posted it), and I wasn't able to put the thought into the thread that was necessary. Then it apparently naturally went to it's end, so I just decided not to respond.
Then I did the non-skating officiating for roller derby this past weekend, and forgot about it. LOL
Now I remembered, and I'm like, "oops." So, yeah. Sorry to post and run. :)
Wildflower
4-17-12, 5:35am
Sorry guys!
I bailed on this one because we got hit with a lot of great work over the last two weeks (or whenever I posted it), and I wasn't able to put the thought into the thread that was necessary. Then it apparently naturally went to it's end, so I just decided not to respond.
Then I did the non-skating officiating for roller derby this past weekend, and forgot about it. LOL
Now I remembered, and I'm like, "oops." So, yeah. Sorry to post and run. :)
It's never too late to put your 2 cents in. I and others here would be interested in your response since apparently you felt strongly enough about this subject or you wouldn't have started a thread on it.....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.