Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PTTG??]

Is that the millenials' fault though?  Who raised them?

Of course it is. As six-year-olds, they should have thrown their participation trophies in the dirt. Everything they've done since has been complicity in their own misraisement.

[MrRoboto75]

Is that the millenials' fault though?  Who raised them?

Of course it is. As six-year-olds, they should have thrown their participation trophies in the dirt. Everything they've done since has been complicity in their own misraisement.

I don't think it was a group of six year olds banding together to petition for participation trophies.  Maybe it was the adults at the time passing them around, that didn't want to accept their kids as not being special or being a failure at something.

[Reelya]

Demographers probably like shortening the generations since they can write more papers if there are more generations, and get paid to argue about it. If they stuck to strict definitions then there would be less papers to write. Get used to seeing a new generation for every 5 year cohort. We can start naming them by the fastest-growing social media platforms when they turn 18.

Generation Whatsapp is the upcoming one.

Honestly I disagree. It's not like demographers are in it for the money.

They are in it for the money. They get research grants and tenure, and that is dependent on them pumping out "research" papers. You might as well say TV executives aren't in it for the money, or subway "sandwich artists" aren't in it for the money. It's their job, and for people who've made a career out of quibbling over subdivisions between Boomers / Gen X / Millennials, they're clearly out of actual meaningful research territory and into publishing absolute shit for the sake of keeping up their research paper output to keep tenure.

[misko27]

I wonder if the CBO will ever get to doing the new AHCA (before the Senate tears it a new one, of course). It never got rated (with Trump claiming, quote, that it was so difficult to predict these sort of things they might as well not do it at all, which is a great stance for someone trying to write legislation; some might say "if you can't know if it'll work, why even try?" but Trump has never concerned himself with such issues). But if it does get done (and I don't know if the fact that the House has already done it, and the Senate will be making a new one essentially) means that they won't do it. If they do eventually put something out, it'll create some bad headlines for the bill and put pressure on the Senate to be more drastic.

[Strife26]

I remember being in Taekwondo (no clue how the hell to spell it) back in the day, and was doing some competition. I did the whatever-it-was really well, but got 4th place. Why? Some other kid went up there, did it halfway, burst into tears, and then finished while crying and otherwise doing terribly.


They gave him first place.



Maybe we shouldn't blame Millennials. Maybe we should blame the parents.

Why stop there? The parents of parents are responsible for poorly instructing their children in parenting skills.

[PTTG??]

Demographers probably like shortening the generations since they can write more papers if there are more generations, and get paid to argue about it. If they stuck to strict definitions then there would be less papers to write. Get used to seeing a new generation for every 5 year cohort. We can start naming them by the fastest-growing social media platforms when they turn 18.

Generation Whatsapp is the upcoming one.

Honestly I disagree. It's not like demographers are in it for the money.

They are in it for the money. They get research grants and tenure, and that is dependent on them pumping out "research" papers. You might as well say TV executives aren't in it for the money, or subway "sandwich artists" aren't in it for the money. It's their job, and for people who've made a career out of quibbling over subdivisions between Boomers / Gen X / Millennials, they're clearly out of actual meaningful research territory and into publishing absolute shit for the sake of keeping up their research paper output to keep tenure.

That is the same argument used by global warming deniers to argue that climatologists are writing hack papers to get rich quick, and it's just as stupid. Can you really picture a fresh-faced demography student rubbing his hands together, cackling evily at the boatloads of money that will be his as soon as he gets some of that grant money? Or those billionaire playboy demographers lounging in piles of cash, laughing at their friends who thought they'd make their money by working in competitive fields where workers are in demand?

[TheBiggerFish]

quote, that it was so difficult to predict these sort of things they might as well not do it at all,

...No, Easterbrook, go away.  Was it him?  Some guy critical of people predicting market effects from regulatory actions.
*grumbles muchly at the idiocy intensification*

Demographers probably like shortening the generations since they can write more papers if there are more generations, and get paid to argue about it. If they stuck to strict definitions then there would be less papers to write. Get used to seeing a new generation for every 5 year cohort. We can start naming them by the fastest-growing social media platforms when they turn 18.

Generation Whatsapp is the upcoming one.

Honestly I disagree. It's not like demographers are in it for the money.

They are in it for the money. They get research grants and tenure, and that is dependent on them pumping out "research" papers. You might as well say TV executives aren't in it for the money, or subway "sandwich artists" aren't in it for the money. It's their job, and for people who've made a career out of quibbling over subdivisions between Boomers / Gen X / Millennials, they're clearly out of actual meaningful research territory and into publishing absolute shit for the sake of keeping up their research paper output to keep tenure.

That is the same argument used by global warming deniers to argue that climatologists are writing hack papers to get rich quick, and it's just as stupid. Can you really picture a fresh-faced demography student rubbing his hands together, cackling evily at the boatloads of money that will be his as soon as he gets some of that grant money? Or those billionaire playboy demographers lounging in piles of cash, laughing at their friends who thought they'd make their money by working in competitive fields where workers are in demand?

I wouldn't say demographers are fomenting generations for money, but...It does make some sense that they might disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I can't be sure who started applying the term 'millennial' to people or if he made any money but it definitely caught on for whatever reason.

If any money is made off the term its those trashy clickfarm sites using the term 'millennial' in every other article.

[Reelya]

Nobody is cackling evily, but there are a bunch of academics who's livelihoods are basically dependent on publishing meaningless stuff, and if they all just said "yeah ok the previous definitions of all those terms are fine" then half of them would be out of a job.

And it is exactly the same as Hollywood. Studios churn out movies because that's what movie studios do. Whether they have something worth saying is secondary. So it is with publishing schedules.

[Neonivek]

Nobody is cackling evily, but there are a bunch of academics who's livelihoods are basically dependent on publishing meaningless stuff, and if they all just said "yeah ok the previous definitions of all those terms are fine" then half of them would be out of a job.

I hate to use this term: They are shit disturbers.

[misko27]

I can't be sure who started applying the term 'millennial' to people or if he made any money but it definitely caught on for whatever reason.

It's not a mystery, actually. Wikipedia has the answer of course.

Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069, by authors William Strauss and Neil Howe. Coined in 1987, before most Millenials (all millennials?) were born, of course. More information on them and the Straus-Howe generational theory here. Of note:

Steve Bannon, adviser to President Donald Trump, is a prominent proponent of Strauss–Howe generational theory.^[5][6][7]

Hooray for small worlds, I suppose.

The reason you see it everywhere is probably the whole thing where "millenials" tend to coincide with the all-important "buys our shit" demographic. In this way, "Baby Boomers"  are also used as a synonym for "old people", although at least "Baby Boomers" can be said to form a distinctive generation in some sense, due to the demographic effects of WW2. In the absence of massive loss of life particularly among men (and/or women) in a specific age group (such as, you know, military service age), it seems odd to speak of "generations" as wide social concepts (as opposed to generations in a single families context).

[PTTG??]

Demography does not consist solely of naming generations, though. Seriously, do you think particle physicists are just dicking around and inventing fake particles? Cartographers just inventing fake countries for the hell of it?

Now, I'm not saying that demographers are angels, I'm just saying that I don't see any compelling reason to think they're inventing "meaningless" distinctions. And furthermore, in my experience there is a distinctive culture among academics that frankly doesn't concern itself with money.

This broad disdain seems, to me, to be part of the anti-intellectual movement, and like I said, has the same hallmarks.

That all said, I totally agree that there are certainly commentators who have little-to-no actual credential who are happy to make broad generalizations. But it's no more fair to blame demographers for the excesses of tabloids than it is to blame climatologists for the brief "global cooling" hype.

[Neonivek]

Demography does not consist solely of naming generations, though. Seriously, do you think particle physicists are just dicking around and inventing fake particles? Cartographers just inventing fake countries for the hell of it?

Now, I'm not saying that demographers are angels, I'm just saying that I don't see any compelling reason to think they're inventing "meaningless" distinctions. And furthermore, in my experience there is a distinctive cultural difference among academics.

This broad disdain seems, to me, to be part of the anti-intellectual movement, and like I said, has the same hallmarks.

That all said, I totally agree that there are certainly commentators who have little-to-no actual credential who are happy to make broad generalizations. But it's no more fair to blame demographers for the excesses of tabloids than it is to blame climatologists for the brief "global cooling" hype.

Depends if they are demographers or "Social critics"

[SalmonGod]

Still, the environment which produces nationalists is one that produces communities of neighbours, in areas of low-crime where there is a high trust community steeped in folk and communal bonds.

Kind of late, but... umm... I quite disagree with this.

My experience with small town America (in Indiana, at least) is it's got just as much hard drugs and violence going on as the city, if not more.  Difference is how stretched thin their law enforcement is, and how that law enforcement tends to be operated by the regional good ol' boys club, who only give a shit about them and theirs.

[scriver]

Well I guess I have to apologize to SalmonGod for uncalling him millenial, but I still feel millenial refers more to post-2000 than pre-.

My apologies, salmongod. You were correct the whole time