Print

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

[EnigmaticHat]

As a post-divorce GenX'er, I endorse this post. And yeah, I find myself basically trying more to live like younger generations (renting, extremely unorthodox family structure, not even thinking about home ownership or marriage ever again, not worried about having a nice car, trying to give my kids experiences instead of stuff, etc.).

The thing is, I wasn't raised by Boomers. I was raised by "Greatest Generationers" in a pretty happy, stable household. So I'm not abandoning their ideals out of rejection, I'm abandoning them because I don't have any fucking choice. I can't afford a nice car, I can't afford a house (plus have seen how home ownership is a trap when the economy favors a highly mobile, disposable workforce), I can't afford lots of stuff for my kids. I don't ever want to get married again, because I'm going to financially be crippled by the divorce for another 10 years.

GenX'ers are scrambling to cope with an economy that just doesn't allow for the life their parents and grandparents had (it might allow for the life their grandparents had when they were *kids* -- i.e. the Great Depression). But when we started adulting, it was still achievable, it just meant we had to work a little harder. Then a little harder than that. Then harder than that. Before we knew it, we're all working 60-70 hours a week in stagnant wages to try and provide for our families the way we were provided for, and failing at it. And then feeling like failures, and coping with booze, opioids, Netflix and bitter, sarcastic humor.

Whereas millenials saw that the party was over before they even joined in. So they've been creating their own new way of doing things. And us GenX folks are now hitting the point where we can't work any harder, we can't take it anymore, we've accepted we're never going to do as good as our parents, and we just want a fucking break. I think in the next 5-10 years, you're going to see a massive wave of divorces, foreclosures, bankruptcies, and a movement of GenX people trying to become late-comer millenials. Which is kind of messed-up on its own, because it means a lot of middle-aged people trying to be considerably younger than they are (witness the rise of the 'cougar'). I'm wondering if it's going to be as painful as watching Mitt Romney ask "Who let the dogs out?".

Heh, I kind of skipped GenX-ers because my parents had kids unusually late.  They're almost 40 years older than me, so to me its all Boomers and Millennials.

What you say about having no choice rings true to me.  The cultural changes in America are mostly voluntary, but the economic shifts?  Its always funny when some online analysis says that millenials "like to live mobile lives with little property and only staying at jobs for less than two years".  Like sure buddy, we "like" that.  Same way we like when the rain falls and the wind blows.  Its just how things are, whether we like it or not is a side note.

[Frumple]

Pretty sure significantly less than wind and rain, really. Some of us actually enjoy that kind of weather. Probably more in the general vicinity of prostate exams or somethin'. Is still thing that needs done, but please hurry and get your fingers out of my ass.

[nenjin]

I agree with the statement: "I saw the way things were going and decided to play by a different set of rules."

That said, I know plenty of people in my generation who have played the game and haven't been fucked over. They have the house. They have the kids. They have the car.

So it's not impossible. It's a matter of salary. Single, making like $25k a year or something, I feel like I've got my situation on lockdown. But I don't feel like I can break out of the lifestyle my income allows without accepting a ton of debt and being vulnerable to a total derail with one catastrophe. So it just makes more sense to play it cautiously. I'm sure with two incomes it'd be way, way easier.

[WealthyRadish]

Generally speaking, the real wages of a place are limited at their lowest by the amount necessary for the working class to willingly reproduce at the given standard of living. If they fall below that, people will either stay single or will migrate, eventually depopulating the area and forcing some additional enticements from employers; young parents in modern times are often kept at some level of subsistence significantly below what is necessary for an existence anywhere near this standard, as they must compete with other young people who delay having children for longer and longer due to these pressures and other factors (now that not having children is often a choice). If we look at the unskilled workweek necessary to support a family today, we see that it's remarkably close to the workweek of the mid 19th century, when people in industrialized countries such as Britain generally worked 12 hours a day 6 days a week (but had much longer breaks; breaks have essentially vanished today while in the 19th century they may have been 1.5-2 hours).

In practice, wages can be depressed onward to ever lower vistas if the standard of living is allowed to fall; in relative terms they're always falling as cheaper products cheapen workers, but a further absolute decline can be possible if the workers are so helpless that they can't resist a lower standard of living even with the cheaper products. The effect of cheapening products is additionally reduced by the ever increasing concentration of capital and domination of market share in most industries by a small number of actors.

In the United States today, where workers have in many respects fewer rights than a medieval Russian slave, collective bargaining has been all but eviscerated, and political consciousness is so backward you'd think we just emerged from a time capsule from 1769, this outcome shouldn't be much of a surprise. It isn't sustainable though, eventually something will break and wages will be forced back up to at least their replacement value at the developed standard of living.

[Max™]

I never thought of it, but I guess my parents did have a divorce of sorts... either way, broken home, always despised the pagan marketing festival, saw early on that the act of trying to produce a nuclear family runs severe risk of fallout, and happily avoided the trap of being burdened by children in my 20's.

As a tail-Xer I'm gradually creeping up on 40 now so I find myself interested in anti-senescence developments--though I have been since I was properly aware of mortality really, probably seeing Challenger blow up--but I'm probably not alone in thinking it might be for the best that they aren't here just yet. A world ran by immortal boomers is darker than any dystopia I can think of besides like... Manifold: Space maybe?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Fortunately, a world of "creeping conservatism" as Transhuman Space put it, would at least not favor the boomers if it happened at all due to population increases. What remains of them would end up only the far edge of a conservatism which would be in the first few centuries most ironically embodied by the millennials in both senses of ironic.

[redwallzyl]

Generally speaking, the real wages of a place are limited at their lowest by the amount necessary for the working class to willingly reproduce at the given standard of living. If they fall below that, people will either stay single or will migrate, eventually depopulating the area and forcing some additional enticements from employers; young parents in modern times are often kept at some level of subsistence significantly below what is necessary for an existence anywhere near this standard, as they must compete with other young people who delay having children for longer and longer due to these pressures and other factors (now that not having children is often a choice). If we look at the unskilled workweek necessary to support a family today, we see that it's remarkably close to the workweek of the mid 19th century, when people in industrialized countries such as Britain generally worked 12 hours a day 6 days a week (but had much longer breaks; breaks have essentially vanished today while in the 19th century they may have been 1.5-2 hours).

In practice, wages can be depressed onward to ever lower vistas if the standard of living is allowed to fall; in relative terms they're always falling as cheaper products cheapen workers, but a further absolute decline can be possible if the workers are so helpless that they can't resist a lower standard of living even with the cheaper products. The effect of cheapening products is additionally reduced by the ever increasing concentration of capital and domination of market share in most industries by a small number of actors.

In the United States today, where workers have in many respects fewer rights than a medieval Russian slave, collective bargaining has been all but eviscerated, and political consciousness is so backward you'd think we just emerged from a time capsule from 1769, this outcome shouldn't be much of a surprise. It isn't sustainable though, eventually something will break and wages will be forced back up to at least their replacement value at the developed standard of living.

Are you questioning our neoliberal overlords? Obviously you are a dangerous communist bent on the destruction of our society! something something the rich earned all their money, something something destroy the economy, something something trickle down, progress, capitalism, social programs are a waste, the government is evil, the market will fix everything if you leave it alone.

[wierd]

I feel compelled to mention that a great deal of the impetus behind the "disposable workforce" trend is from the existence of day trading.   When the financial forecast of 4 months is considered "long term" the very concept of training and retaining employees as assets dries up like a withered mummy. 

[Lord Shonus]

I'm not sure if day trading is the cause, but you're quite right that there is a huge "short term profit over all" tendency in modern business. Slash and burn is the order of the day.

[McTraveller]

Regarding SS:  SSI is not an investment, at least not in the traditional sense.  It's basically forced savings, and the "investment" is in aggregate stability of the retired/disabled population rather than in some productive enterprise.  It's much closer in operation, as others have said, to insurance.  The payment mechanisms and the growth of the trust fund are the same as with any insurance scheme - the people paying premiums are a statistical minority of those drawing benefits, and the difference is invested to grow.  The history behind SSI and FDIC is entirely rooted in the Great Depression and the aftermath, including the dust bowl - it wasn't just the financial bits.  The sad thing is that probably 50% of the effects of the Great Depression were self-inflicted.

Regarding generational stuff:  I'm actually personally very puzzled by the claim that Gen-X and later "just purely have no opportunity for a successful living".  This must be highly dependent on geography or demographics or something, because my peer group (born late 70's, early 80's, smack at the GenX/Millenial transition) are essentially all yuppies - but we also all went into engineering or medicine.  I don't know how much of that was just luck of our interests or the opportunities/families we had growing up or or own personal work ethic or what.  Part of it too I think is that none of us are risk-takers; we are all fairly conservative financially so have low debt loads (most of us that have debt, it's limited to a mortgage).

Are we really just a statistical anomaly? Are we just so used to what's around us we don't see that there really aren't opportunities?  Are those who feel there are no opportunities so used to what's around them they don't see the opportunities that are there?  Some combination of both?

[Rolan7]

I'm probably in your group, 31, ~5 years older than most of my friends.  And I similarly worked very hard, desperately even.  (Unlike my younger brother who partied through college - I'm a lush now, but I didn't start until I was ~25, not 18)

Stumbled and failed university due(?) to divorce, but still tested into a hyper-specific tech job which eventually gave me raises for apparently doing really well.  Capped at a certain point because lol degrees, but I was happy.  I lived like in college, and like my younger friends: exceptionally frugally.
Company folded last year, and here I am doing freelance and getting by until I find my new niche.

My parents are constantly asking me why my somewhat-younger friends don't have solid jobs, and I can't stand it.  I was so fortunate to find a niche.  Working like an abhuman helped, but it's not enough to justify the situation of people entering the workforce now.

And, of course, the literally but unofficially constant on-call I worked at that company taught me a psychological dependence on alcohol to get through the working day.  How to stay buzzed and not let it show.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Remember that Virginia House of Delegates seat that was decided by one vote? After a ballot was certified by a three-judge panel, the race is now decided by zero votes.

That's right: They're going to pull a name out of a film canister (other states do coin flips). And if that's not enough, the loser has a right to another recount after that, assuming no other legal challenges go through.

The law offices have got to be past coffee overtime and into meth overtime by now.

[Frumple]

Pretty sure you mean past the normal meth stage and into the meth spiked coffee syringes. Last I checked it's either meth or speed that's fairly endemic to lawyers -- there is no meth overtime, just meth always.

[SalmonGod]

I was raised Jehovah's Witness by my mom until somewhere around 9 or 10, when that just sort of fizzled out into a non-descript non-religiousness.  I learned later that my anti-organized religion but vaguely theist scientist dad just got tired of it and subtly expressed his disapproval until it went away. 

So we would usually visit my mom's very large extended family for holidays, who all lived in a regional cluster about two states away and all Lutheran traditional farmers.  I liked them, but I had nothing in common with them and only saw them once or twice a year, so could never get to know them well enough that the whole experience wasn't awkward.  Because they didn't know me, and didn't have much money, getting gifts was never very exciting either.  That was my only experience with holidays within my family. 

We otherwise didn't observe them at all.  Even birthdays were hardly recognized.  So through my childhood, I only observed holidays from a distance, and they appeared pretty goddamn absurd.  Then somewhere in my late teens, my 10 years younger than me sister started demanding holiday stuff happen, and my parents suddenly about-faced and totally all-out embraced it.  It was weird. Like 15 years later, it still feels weird.  I just politely provide my parents with Christmas lists, and appreciate having the opportunity to get some stuff every year that I'd have a lot of trouble affording for myself.  I appreciate spending time with them, but would much prefer if it was without the weird ritual facade.  Especially because I can't afford to offer anything substantial in return other than gratitude, so I always feel bad handing them that wishlist. 

Further muddling in my relationship with the holidays comes from work.  I worked at Fedex for 10 years (my entire 20s), and they don't give holidays off.  Even federal holidays.  And have been in the shipping/logistics world for about 15 now.  So in my professional life, I associate holidays with astronomical increases in crisis, pressure, and overtime.  So it basically robs my kids of their dad's presence for 3-4 months, and for 10 years that didn't even culminate in the holiday itself as solid family time.

So yeah... I'm a total Scrooge.  I try to be good natured about it.  I know how bitterly combative people who enjoy the holidays will get about it, so I just weather it and try to let them have their fun.  But I really fucking hate the holidays and think they're patently absurd.  In my own household, I totally ignore them.  My wife loves them and tries to do the whole thing for our kids.  But I'm completely up front with them about how I want nothing to do with it, and play avoidant until my help or participation is demanded.

[Telgin]

Regarding generational stuff:  I'm actually personally very puzzled by the claim that Gen-X and later "just purely have no opportunity for a successful living".  This must be highly dependent on geography or demographics or something, because my peer group (born late 70's, early 80's, smack at the GenX/Millenial transition) are essentially all yuppies - but we also all went into engineering or medicine.  I don't know how much of that was just luck of our interests or the opportunities/families we had growing up or or own personal work ethic or what.  Part of it too I think is that none of us are risk-takers; we are all fairly conservative financially so have low debt loads (most of us that have debt, it's limited to a mortgage).

Are we really just a statistical anomaly? Are we just so used to what's around us we don't see that there really aren't opportunities?  Are those who feel there are no opportunities so used to what's around them they don't see the opportunities that are there?  Some combination of both?

I feel like there's some truth to it, maybe even a lot, but I don't think it's the full picture.  I feel like it's at least partly a shift in opportunities that's to blame.

For example, you say you went into engineering and medicine.  I went into computer science, now have a Ph.D in it and (almost) own my home, own a car, and have savings.  I was even born in rural South Carolina, so geography doesn't exclude it outright.  I was astoundingly lucky.  I attended a tiny high school so that I was the top graduate, meaning I got free tuition for my undergrad.  Then I was able to get an assistantship for the majority of my graduate school, meaning I managed to go from high school to Ph.D with only a few thousand dollars in student loans.  I was also lucky enough to find a local company looking to hire a programmer like me, which has also survived multiple near catastrophes.  If much had been different, I don't know where I'd be right now.

My brothers are different stories.  My older brother has a degree in biology and works at UPS because that's the best he can find.  It's part time work and he got passed over for a chance at full time as a manager, so he'd never be able to afford a house on his salary.  He'd have to have two jobs to have a chance, so he lives with me.  My younger brother has bounced between minimum wage jobs for years, has been unemployed for over a full year now, and is teetering on bankruptcy.  Having a kid didn't help, since he's still paying the hospital for their services almost three years later.  His wife owes tens of thousands of dollars on her student loans.

It seems to me like, right now, you have people who are entering tech jobs and medicine, and they're doing okay or quite well.  Then you've got the people who don't want to do that, or can't, and they pretty much can't get by since they have to settle for working at Walmart and McDonald's to make enough to survive.

Is that just because real estate is too expensive, and because healthcare costs so much?  Maybe.  I'm not sure, but maybe.  Anecdotally, I can say that even the most completely awful apartments around where I live are at least $500 per month without utilities, internet or anything like that  My older brother doesn't make enough to even make a rent payment for the cheapest crap around.  A 30 year mortgage might have lower payments, but good luck getting approved for one on minimum wage salaries.

I don't know.  I don't want to become a late stage capitalism evangelist, but it feels like these problems are just going to become more polarizing with the increase in AI capabilities.  Self driving trucks are going to put a ton of people out of work.  We don't even need most of the people running cash registers since computers and touch screens can handle that perfectly fine.  Oh, but if you go into tech, you'll be one of the few people who are building and maintaining this tech, and thus making all of the money.

What's going to happen?  I don't know.