Young vs Old, the new political spectrum

[Archaic_Entity]

Found this interesting article. Being part of the younger generation, I agree with many of the things it states, but since a lot of you gun-totin' folks hail from previous generations to mine, I was wondering what y'all thought.

Print - The War Against Youth - Esquire

 

[RockofStrength]

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?

Yeah, sure.

The article raises good points, though the author's bias is clearly shown in his opinions. The ease of job finding that used to exist is gone. The robust, ever-rising beast of an economy has deflated and has sunk under the weight of an increasing number of popped bubbles. The government has thrown money at every system, from colleges to banks to businesses and in the process only deepened the problems they sought to fix (those increasing college costs aren't merely the result of increased student numbers, after all).

I'm among the members of that younger generation, though I can't say that I'm mad for any economic circumstance brought about by the older generations like the article claims I should be. I despise the intrusive, powerful government that some of those old folks voted for, and am deeply saddened by the children they have "raised". Yet, I'm a little too busy taking advantage of all the opportunities that I'm still afforded even in this economy to waste it stewing over how other people "cheated" me out of enjoying the benefits of a temporary, artificial bubble of prosperity.

I read a saying of a wise man, and took it to heart:

"Do not be eager in your heart to be angry, for anger resides in the bosom of fools. Do not say, 'Why is it that the former days were better than these?' For it is not from wisdom that you ask about this."

 

[Archaic_Entity]

I'm among the members of that younger generation, though I can't say that I'm mad for any economic circumstance brought about by the older generations like the article claims I should be. I despise the intrusive, powerful government that some of those old folks voted for, and am deeply saddened by the children they have "raised". Yet, I'm a little too busy taking advantage of all the opportunities that I'm still afforded even in this economy to waste it stewing over how other people "cheated" me out of enjoying the benefits of a temporary, artificial bubble of prosperity.

I read a saying of a wise man, and took it to heart:

"Do not be eager in your heart to be angry, for anger resides in the bosom of fools. Do not say, 'Why is it that the former days were better than these?' For it is not from wisdom that you ask about this."

I am definitely not saying I agree with the entirety of the article, nor his anger. But he raises an interesting point that the youngest members of the Senate are 40, a good 10 years above the minimum age, is an interesting point. In general, the government is dominated by folks many years our seniors, giving our generation little leeway to start forging our own way politically.

Don't mistake my agreement with his sentiments for anger. I try to be analytical in all situations.

 

[CarmelHP]

What a load of crap. More socialism for the young to offset the socialism for the old. It's always the same solution. Not too much government, no, just not enough government to go around so we need more. There is so much wrong there I don't even know where to start.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

What a load of crap. More socialism for the young to offset the socialism for the old. It's always the same solution. Not too much government, no, just not enough government to go around so we need more. There is so much wrong there I don't even know where to start.

Well, I would appreciate your input. I can understand where you would see a heavy liberalism slant. But I believe that his facts are on-point, even if his proposed solution doesn't agree with me.

Don't worry, I won't get offended if you prove me wrong.

 

[dross]

Well, I would appreciate your input. I can understand where you would see a heavy liberalism slant. But I believe that his facts are on-point, even if his proposed solution doesn't agree with me.

Don't worry, I won't get offended if you prove me wrong.

He offers very few facts, and the ones he does offer I'd like to see how they were calculated.

Pick a premise and a conclusion you find compelling and I'd be happy to comment on it.

 

[tv1217]

Yeah, sure.

lol, that's the exact opposite of the truth. They're there because they don't want to work, but they have nothing better to do but b--ch and moan.

 

[hornadylnl]

If some had their way, the youth would be 3/5 of a person. The young should shut their mouths and go to work to pay for the social security of those currently drawing. Even though these kids weren't even a gleem in their daddy's eye when today's adults voted for the garbage that got us hear, they need to shut up and take one for the team.

 

[MTC]

Found this interesting article. Being part of the younger generation, I agree with many of the things it states, but since a lot of you gun-totin' folks hail from previous generations to mine, I was wondering what y'all thought.

I've enjoyed most posts of yours I can remember seeing, so wanted to mention a few things that have always struck me whenever people start talking about this vs that generation.

The article is a steaming pile of communist drivel, designed to foment hatred, jealosy, and resentment, this time casting "the younger" generation as "the oppressed" and the "the older" one (the "Boomers", in this case) as "the oppressors". This is the central theme of Marxist Theory, pitting those who have less against those who (seem to) have more. (of anything, really - though it's nearly always money and/or power)

In general, the government is dominated by folks many years our seniors, giving our generation little leeway to start forging our own way politically.

Dominated? Interesting word. Who exactly is "our generation", and where might that line or age cut-off be drawn? (Please do not take the questions in a negative way, rather speaking to you quietly in a low tone. Consider them as rhetorical, file them away and revisit them in 10, 20, and especially 30 years.)

Well, I would appreciate your input. I can understand where you would see a heavy liberalism slant. But I believe that his facts are on-point, even if his proposed solution doesn't agree with me.

Don't worry, I won't get offended if you prove me wrong.

I saw no solution proposed in the article, more like a litany of complaints. Also, you have offered nothing to be proven wrong.

Meeting and talking with others personally is far superior to corresponding from afar, and leads to understanding, reconciliation, and simplification of seemingly complex issues.

Cool avatar, BTW.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

lol, that's the exact opposite of the truth. They're there because they don't want to work, but they have nothing better to do but b--ch and moan.

While I can't speak for every other person my age, I can state that I personally work every day that I'm not in school to finance my way through school with no help from my parents except the few times when I've been hit way over my head due to unforeseen circumstances. And usually that is in the form of a loan that I pay back as promptly as I can. I think it's these blanket generalizations that stereotype the younger folks that cause such a defensive mentality among people such as this writer.

He offers very few facts, and the ones he does offer I'd like to see how they were calculated.

Pick a premise and a conclusion you find compelling and I'd be happy to comment on it.

I think a large premise that I would discuss is the rising tuition rates spoke of in the second portion of the article. Specifically the huge increase in rates paid by students and the rise in internships by companies.

I will admit that I can't exactly pull where he gets all of his information, as he just bucket dumps all of his sources at the end of the article without citing them in the article, but here's another article that talks about more recent rate increases from 2001-2003. The article is dated 2003.

The Rising Price of Higher Education

I can also state that since I've started school, tuition rates have increased again. IU actually had a small "riot"/"protest" yesterday over the issue. I won't discuss exactly how that was handled, because I think those folks were just riled with nowhere to go.

Specifically he points out that we end up in so much debt that it's almost impossible to get out of, causing a lot of people to return home until they can get on their feet. As the article points out, this isn't necessarily a new phenomenon, but its prevalence is new.

Furthermore, many places are requiring internships before hiring for pay, which is incredibly difficult for people like myself who don't have parents able to cover my living arrangements while interning for no pay. It severely limits my career opportunities unless I'm willing to work 40 hours/week without pay and then another 20-30 hours/week for pay to live in sub-standard accommodations.

What would my solution be? Well, I certainly believe that we're on a student loan bubble very similar to the housing bubble. Since the government is backing defaulting of loans, and the loans are practically guaranteed, schools have no issue raising tuition costs which in turn causes students to have to borrow more to cover the expense. I can go on about disassembling the Fed and allowing private institution to compete for student loans and interest rates. But I'm not entirely sure politicians would go for it, unfortunately. And I think that's largely because they aren't the ones having to pay for the loans, but are getting paid because they issue the loans.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

I've enjoyed most posts of yours I can remember seeing, so wanted to mention a few things that have always struck me whenever people start talking about this vs that generation.

The article is a steaming pile of communist drivel, designed to foment hatred, jealosy, and resentment, this time casting "the younger" generation as "the oppressed" and the "the older" one (the "Boomers", in this case) as "the oppressors". This is the central theme of Marxist Theory, pitting those who have less against those who (seem to) have more. (of anything, really - though it's nearly always money and/or power)
Dominated? Interesting word. Who exactly is "our generation", and where might that line or age cut-off be drawn? (Please do not take the questions in a negative way, rather speaking to you quietly in a low tone. Consider them as rhetorical, file them away and revisit them in 10, 20, and especially 30 years.)

I can understand where you would gather that. I agree with the sentiment that there is definitely an old vs young issue in America. Just looking at SS and Medicare shows a huge difference in the currently and soon-to-be retiring folks and the younger part of the work force. Does that make me a Marxist theorist? No. I simply understand that there's a drain on society due to the fact that we're paying into a system with no promise of return. As the Boomers retire, being the largest generation in America, they'll definitely put a strain on the working class to cover their retirement and medical benefits well into my 40's.

If I were to solve this, my potential solution would be to cut the pay-in to FICA taxes in general. Anyone who's already paid in will get their benefits as normal from SS to the degree they've paid in. This would allow a gradual easing of the system from having to cover the burden by gradually allowing governmental spending to shift until it's completely phased out. A long-term process, but better than a sudden change, I think.

To answer your question about what I consider a "generation," it's not exactly a "line-drawn" issue to any particular age. But I think it's relatively safe to say, at least from my current standpoint, that a generation occurs probably every 18 years or so. I'm sure that will change as I go and become part of the older population.

I saw no solution proposed in the article, more like a litany of complaints. Also, you have offered nothing to be proven wrong.

Hopefully between my previous post and this one I've given issues to be discussed.

Meeting and talking with others personally is far superior to corresponding from afar, and leads to understanding, reconciliation, and simplification of seemingly complex issues.

I agree. Unfortunately, my general ability to talk to folks outside of my peer group is relatively limited. Hence putting this on a forum where I know the general age range is larger than my in-person contacts.

Cool avatar, BTW.

Thanks.

I hope that you don't misunderstand me as a Marxist economist. I'm actually largely opposed to blaming your problems on anyone, even a previous generation. But there is definitely a sentiment among a lot of the older generations that us younger folks deserve the crap-sandwich that's been handed to us because we're entitled and lazy. I can understand how watching the media may portray us this way, but I promise that it's not the case for a large portion of us. I know because I work with these people every day and I take class with them.

 

[CarmelHP]

You sound like you may understand that a lot of your complaints are part of the same money and debt bubble. The author of that article wants the bubble bigger. I do question his assertions about relative wealth and when those measures were made. Much of the wealth of older Americans was in stocks and primary housing which evaporated over the last 5 years. People of all ages are struggling. At least the young have the chance to outlive and outwork the hard times. Much of the destroyed wealth can never be recouped for older workers. There is an inflation coming like we've never seen before and it will level all ages as the final bubbles are popped.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I got through about half a page of the article before my eyes started crossing. Problem: too many old folks are depending upon government handouts for medical care - gotcha
Problem: Congress is top-heavy with the elderly - all we have to do is look at our Senior Senator and some of his votes to agree with that. Although, youth isn't necessarily a guarantee of impeccable and informed logic.
Problem: Government - at all levels - is doing too much and spending too much of our money - a multi-generational issue since the very elderly have been conditioned to depend upon the government for sustenance and medical care and various members of the succeeding generations have been conditioned to depend upon government for everything. We've reached the point where about half the populace is supporting, to some extent, the other half of the population. There isn't any way that's going to end well.

Solution: If we don't shift the focus of the government and stop its excessive spending, the problem will be solved for us. The country will collapse and whole big bunches of ants will die along with the grasshoppers until a more reasonable government is reinstituted - or we may all end our days in servitude to some other national master.

 

[hornadylnl]

I hope that you don't misunderstand me as a Marxist economist. I'm actually largely opposed to blaming your problems on anyone, even a previous generation. But there is definitely a sentiment among a lot of the older generations that us younger folks deserve the crap-sandwich that's been handed to us because we're entitled and lazy. I can understand how watching the media may portray us this way, but I promise that it's not the case for a large portion of us. I know because I work with these people every day and I take class with them.

Shut and work to pay for the retirements of those who actually created this mess. The fact that you dare question the fairness of this arrangement is proof that you're entitled and lazy.

Not really sure if this should be purple or not.

 

[cobber]

Nobody ever talks about generational conflict.

Clearly this writer did not grow up in the 60's and 70's. That's about all young folks then talked about.

Across the country, state branches of the Republican party are making a thinly veiled attempt to disenfranchise the young through "voting reform." The trick is simple: Require government-issue photo ID before allowing somebody to vote. Eighteen percent of young voters don't have current photo IDs.

I'll bet 95% of them have driver's licenses...

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.

There's an appeal to reason.


And how does today compare to young people growing up in the depression or WWII?

Why do we always benchmark these comparisions to recent periods of prosperity. Even in the best of times some folks have to struggle by, without government handouts.

It's an ahistorical perspective, and seems to bear something in common with global warming scenarios. Choose a recent period of favorable economics, climate, etc., and then prove how things are now going downhill and we have to do something to correct it.

My folks grew up in the depression. It was hard to find a good job, no one had extra cash for bling and cell phones, etc.

It's hard to see anything constructive in this screed. The MSM will publish anything these days, it seems.

 

[MTC]

I hope that you don't misunderstand me as a Marxist economist. I'm actually largely opposed to blaming your problems on anyone, even a previous generation. But there is definitely a sentiment among a lot of the older generations that us younger folks deserve the crap-sandwich that's been handed to us because we're entitled and lazy. I can understand how watching the media may portray us this way, but I promise that it's not the case for a large portion of us. I know because I work with these people every day and I take class with them.

No, no misunderstanding. You're fine. Since you'd asked, comments were on the article itself, as well as an effort to prevent the discussion from moving in the direction of unnecessarily rancorous discourse that I'd witnessed (but not participated in) while browsing sites in the past. They usually revolved around SS, with accusations and broad sweeping generalizations. Especially frustrating was a polarization between folks who were already in agreement on as much as 90% or more of issues, yet on this one were only separated on a chronological or genealogical timeline.

I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of "shooting the messenger" or being lumped in to a category on a given issue, and so try as much as possible to avoid doing it to others. My comments then are more general in nature. With a grounding only in basic principles, yet lacking specific expertise on economic matters, I'll leave that to others here to comment on any specific proposals.

It may be tangential to the subject, but I ask only that as you go over material on this topic, bear in mind that I didn't invent it, and neither did Mom and Dad, or for that matter my Grandparents. Thank you for your consideration, and best wishes on your journey.

(P.S. If you're ever in doubt about me personally, read over my posts on RKBA issues and ask yourself, "Does this sound like someone who is out to 'oppress' you?")