Does This Generation Have it Worse than Previous Generations?

Parents Forum
1

<p>Parents:</p>

<p>I was just perusing a few threads here and came across some thoughts, spread out across a few threads, that basically the current generation of young people, let's say 15-25, has it worse than previous generations did. Because, for example, it is harder to find a decent job, tough competition from international students, the cost of getting an education, the decrease in the usefullness of an education to get work and pay back loans, etc., etc. </p>

<p>Do most here believe that?</p>

<p>Do the young people you know believe that?</p>

<p>I'm just curious. </p>

<p>I was pondering all this while reading a biography of Jack London, the wilderness writer, the guy who worked twelve to eighteen hours a day in a cannery at age 14 (tell that to young people today if you can get them off their smart phones long enough and see what reaction you get), the guy who went with an uncle to the Yukon to find gold and got scurvy and ended up in a hospital (without insurance I am sure) and yet somehow made it back home despite being penniless on the kindness of strangers one year after he left. Of course, he read extensively while in the Yukon (Darwin, Milton, Kipling) and even though he found no gold when he came back he knew he wanted to be a writer. </p>

<p>This is what London wrote about the poverty in the early 1900's in London:</p>

<p>We went up the narrow gravelled walk. On the benches on either side was arrayed a mass of miserable and distorted humanity .... It was a welter of rages and filth, of all manner of loathsome skin deseases, open sores, bruises, grossness, indecency, leering monstrosities and bestial faces. A chill, raw wind was blowing, and these creatures huddled there in their rags, sleeping for the most part, or trying to sleep. It was the sleep that puzzled me. Why were nine out of ten of them asleep or trying to sleep? But it was not till afterwards that I learned. It is a law of the powers that be that the homeless shall not sleep by night. </p>

<p>Dickens, Updike and many other wrote of simular conditions. </p>

<p>I don't think today's generation has it any tougher than previous generations.</p>

2

<p>I am a parent and I do believe the current generation has it worse than any generation since at least WW II.</p>

<p>I suppose things were much tougher in early 1900s, at least for lower classes.</p>

3

<p>I think of my dad’s generation. My dad’s father ran out on the family when he was young. My dad’s mother had a spinal surgury go wrong that made her essentially invalid and that meant my dad was pretty much on his own at a young age. </p>

<p>He found work as a ranch hand. </p>

<p>You don’t work, and I mean work all day, you don’t eat. It was real simple. You don’t ask for anything you don’t earn either. WW II starts up and he joins in (probably happily). The US military takes care of him and feeds him and he was one of the lucky ones that came back. He never bragged or boasted about it either. He wouldn’t speak a word of it. Nowadays, a young person slams a basketball thogh a hoop and you can bet he’ll trash talk about it. But in my dad’s generation you didn’t need to boast like that. </p>

<p>He got out 28 years later with a pension and that pretty much took care of him the rest of the way. I think my dad’s generation had it pretty tough compared to today’s generation. Certainly tougher than my life.</p>

4

<p>I agree with OP. :)</p>

5

<p>I agree with you. Different, not better/worse. College costs are huge in comparison to the ability to pay for it now. However, the overall standard of living is also much higher for most. Job availability has been worse and better in cycles. Things are just different in each generation. This generation has the information age and more gender equality than mine. But it also faces the realities of running out of fossil fuels and global climate changes.</p>

<p>That said, I do believe our society has peaked. We are living in a Golden Age but with resources limited I see this civilization’s days as numbered. It won’t happen in my lifetime but it may for those much younger.</p>

6

<p>No. I think it’s like the 1970s for this generation. Society is nowhere near the everyday privations that the WWII generation lived through. I also think comparisons to the Depression are horribly overblown.</p>

<p>Times are hard for young people and they are going through a big economic shakeout. Globalization is changing their prospects (some for ill, some for good). However, there is no constant but change. 5 or 6 generations ago my family faced the prospect of going hungry if the crops failed. Not a problem anymore.</p>

7

<p>I think there is a persistent tendency in this country to view the experience of (white, middle-class) Baby Boomers as normative – childhood in the 1950s, college in the 60s-70s, then jobs, etc. Compared to that, and to the Gen Xers who came of age during the go-go 90s, this cohort has it much, much tougher. Deeper recession, more imminent budget crises, far more debt, fewer “good” jobs.</p>

<p>But of course the Baby Boomers’ experience isn’t normative at all. They were extremely lucky – born into a world where only the US hadn’t had its industrial capital bombed to smithereens, where universal education wasn’t quite taken seriously, where there were relatively few old people with relatively short life expectancies to support, where no attempt was being made to internalize environmental costs, and where enormous government subsidies of middle-class benefits was the norm. There were huge productivity gains from technology and global trade waiting to be reaped by the educated elite, which in fact was quite small relative to the total population, although much larger than it had been in previous generations.</p>

<p>This generation faces a much more competitive world, globally and at home. More people are more educated, so it is becoming clear that mere education does not necessarily produce prosperity. Political expectations have shifted so that the government subsidies for middle-class lifestyles are far more anemic, and shrinking. Social mobility is declining rapidly, and social inequality growing. They have to take care of us, and we plan on living (but not working) forever.</p>

<p>So, yeah, compared to Boomers and Xers this sucks. Compared to 19th Century orphans on the streets of London, or 21st Century orphans in the slums of Lagos or Mumbai, not so much. </p>

<p>Compared to people born in Appalachia in the 40s, not so bad, either. It’s not fashionable to say so, but the War on Poverty was a near-complete success – no one in this country today lives in the kind of abject poverty that 10-20% of the country experienced through the middle of the 20th Century.</p>

8

<p>Thank you for the interesting replies so far. JHS, for example, that is the kind of reply that represents the best of this board. You make a number of good points. </p>

<p>I completely agree that the boomers were in the Goldilocks period for the USA. A rudimentary knowledge of history and world events can tell you that based on just what you said: Europe was decimated by WW II as was Japan and the rest of asia was asleep anyway so it isn’t any wonder the USA had a prosperous economy. In addition, as you said, the government, one way or the other, helped out that generation. My dad’s military pension is one example of that. </p>

<p>Still, I would like to believe that young people today, if they even thought about the hardships of their forefathers and mothers, might whine less and work more. Young people today think it is a birthright to be entertained 24/7. Is it any wonder why we can’t compete with Asia economically? Asia doesn’t play fair, I get that, no min wage, lower taxes, less environmental regs, currency manipulation, still we have no choice but to compete economically or get run over. </p>

<p>You don’t work, you don’t eat.</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>No, they don’t. </p>

<p>Half of the country supports the other half; the poor can now buy lobster and other luxury foods on food stamps, thanks to an ever-growing welfare state.</p>

10

<p>“So, yeah, compared to Boomers and Xers this sucks.”</p>

<p>I’d say it sucks even compared to the class of 2005.</p>

11

<p>I don’t think anyone should be on welfare for more than 10 years straight period. I don’t think anyone should be on welfare and then because they have more kids get more welfare for an extended period of time. </p>

<p>But no one cares what I think. </p>

<p>I’ve never been on it. I’ve never collected a penny of unemployment benefits in my life either. I’d do it, if I had to, since I paid in, but I’d be ashamed to do it for very long. It is a program designed to get one back on one’s feet not a program designed to replace looking for work. </p>

<p>I do get the feeling very, very few people think like I do on issues like this, especially young people.</p>

12

<p>Good grief, no. My own mother ate cornmeal mush 3 times a day during the depression because there was no other food. How is “college is really expensive and then it’s hard to find a job” even come close. </p>

<p>I’m with you, OP.</p>

13

<p>Yes, compared to the Great Depression things are not so bleak. But, according to the radio today, at least 50% of college grads from the last few years are unemployed or under-employed. The rate among those without college is even higher. Wages have not kept up with rents, food, gas, and car prices, at least in the northeast. I started out at pretty much minimum wage and yet was able to live in an apartment with just one roommate, have a car, and even eat out once in a while. Yes, there are more things that appear to be essential today - cable TV, cell phones, the internet. But I still think the cost of living on $10 an hour (which is above minimum wage) makes it hard to move out.</p>

<p>Like most things, it all depends on your perspective. Of course kids here have it better than kids in about 90% of the rest of the world and kids with parent on CC probably have it better than the vast majority of kids in this county. My kids get that message all the time. However, this is a board for parents of kids going to college, so many have the perspective that their kids will go to college, get a job and support themselves. It has certainly been that way for the majority of college grads over the last 50 or so years. So, yes, the current crop of graduates has it tougher.</p>

<p>Is it harder than it was pre-industrial revolution, pre-child labor laws, pre-5 day work week? Probably not, but no American’s life is as tough these days.</p>

<p>I also do not recall a time when unpaind internships were seen as a normal way to enter the work force. While an entry level job may have been low wage, it was at least a wage. </p>

<p>Yes there are kids that feel entitled to a great life right off the bat. But most just want to get their independent live started and being to contribute. </p>

<p>And Smorgasbord: The maximum food stamp benefit for a family of 4 in my state is $668. That comes out to less than $150 per week. Many get less due to somewhat higher income. That certainly does not allow a family to buy much in the way of luxury foods or lobster.</p>

14

<p>ordinary,</p>

<p>It is hard to find a job when you can’t stop testing or playing on Facebook or playing video games. Truth is: it has ALWAYS been hard to find a good job. </p>

<p>On one post I read on a thread here, a young person blamed the previous two generations for his/her lack of employment. In the same post he/she said it was her parents fault he/she wasn’t raised right so people should stop complaining about his/her generations laziness. </p>

<p>This particular poster has obviously hasn’t been on the Yukon with Jack London is all I can say. Things have always been tough especially for the working poor.</p>

15

<p>ACCecil: While I know there are those who think that unemployment provides a vacation and that certainly wasn’t the goal of unemploymet, there are many who lost jobs in the recession and have been unable to find new ones, despite their best efforts. Many are older workers who were great employees and had kept up their skills but were let go as they had higher salaries. It is not shameful to be unemployed or to take unemployment, if you lose a job due to no fault of your own. It is certainly not shameful to use food stamps to feed your kids. That is why it is called a safety net. Good for you that you have never had to deal with any obstacles, there but for the grace…</p>

16

<p>Mom2,</p>

<p>Forever? </p>

<p>Is there no limit on how long one can collect welfare? </p>

<p>At some point, in these difficult economic times, shouldn’t we ask everyone to contribute to the cost of society? </p>

<p>A safety net is fine. A hammock for life is not. I never said people should fell ashamed to to take unemployment benefits, I said “I” would feel ashamed to do so because I was raised to not take what I had not earned. If I wanted more, I had to earn it. I realize how offensive that is.</p>

17

<p>First of all, welfare means a lot of things that people may bunch together. As far as cash used to survive (not rent help, food stamps, medicaid) has a lifetime limit in the US and has since the Clinton era. In every state. So lifetime welfare mothers are the stuff of boogeymen. </p>

<p>Now, there are a lot more people on food stamps right now than in the 80s or 90s, but part of the stimulus package increased eligibility. Generally, those with incomes at or below 130% of the official poverty level, and savings of $2,000 or less, may receive aid. The income level is currently just over $29,000 a year for a family of four. That includes working Americans where one spouse has lost a job. </p>

<p>This generation will have its problems, but I am optimistic that this group will find creative solutions. After all, in regions of the country with a high number of educated young people unemplyment numbers are below average (Jacksonville, Boston, Minneapolis, San Francisco). They will create jobs and create wealth. Whether they create jobs that help fellow Americans is yet to be seen. In a more global world, the US may continue to see lower standards of living.</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>Compared to many people born on farms, towns and cities all over America in the 1920s, not so bad … not compared to all the challenges those people faced through the 1930s and 1940s.</p>

<p>I do think, however, that this generation has some unique problems that have nothing directly to do with wages and employment. My father-in-law grew up fairly poor in the 1920s and 1930s, but his family owned a ranch. They could grow their own food. Their farm had its own forge; his father knew how to make nails. Many men of his generation could fix their own cars. My own parents grew up in modest circumstances in small towns and suburbs, but the women in my family knew how to make clothes; the men knew how to make furniture or build a house. Relatively few American families own farms anymore or have the skills to make their own clothes, build their own houses, and fix their own cars (unless those are their professions). So more people are less self-reliant. This is not the result of laziness or bad personal planning. It is the result of trends like globalization, automation, specialization and urbanization. So how well will modern societies ride out future Great Depressions and other severe crises? I don’t think this has been tested yet.</p>

19

<p>Parents who were born in the 1950s were able to afford to attend college even if they had to work to do so, or to find a well paying job without college, to have children and to buy a house to raise them in.</p>

<p>Their children are having much more difficulty with the above. It is simply not affordable to work and pay your college costs as you go, as my father did. While people born in the 1950s could earn a liveable wage with just a high school diploma, people born thirty years later need a college degree to earn the same living.</p>

20

<p>It is not so much a generational thing, since generations as conventionally defined (boomer, X, millenial, etc.) are longer than economic cycles. Within generations, those who enter the work force during economic downturns tend to have worse economic situations than those who enter the work force during better economic times.</p>

<p>On the other hand, it is true that, looking narrowly at the cost of post-secondary education, it is much more costly for the current generation than it was in the past.</p>