Millennials

[Scandium]

What about the trend of millennials looking for tiny houses? At least that is a step in the right direction for mustachian living.

It's only because we can't get house loans at the same rate as our parent's did... or something.

And you should be DAMNED GLAD that's true.   Rates are really low NOW, not in your parent's day.

And here would be the facts to back that statement up:

http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.htm

When I was born my parents could get a mortgage with 17% intereste rate with 2 points. Man, the previous generation had it so easy!

[gimp]

My bad. I saw what looked like stupidity and didn't bother reading the rest.

[GoingConcern]

Eh there is some truth in the stereotypes but I think there are real issues millenials face that prior generations haven't such has large student debt and living/working in a more competitive global world (resulting in higher home prices and lower wages.) Also many of those buying habits are ingrained in all Americans such as large cell phone bill, eating out, etc.

I planned better compared to most of my peers by avoiding student debt, working throughout my life and saving up money to buy a place(thus not having to rent) , not buying a brand new car, keeping my entertainment expenses low (ie not eating out, vacationing, etc like many others in my age group.) and etc. 

If I knew about this forum 5 years ago I would have been in an even better place financially because I would of bought a multi-family unit when real estate prices were at it's lowest and invested more into index funds.  But on the other hand, I'm still doing better than 90% of my peers so I'll be fine.

[Quidnon?]

Eh there is some truth in the stereotypes but I think there are real issues millenials face that prior generations haven't such has large student debt and living/working in a more competitive global world (resulting in higher home prices and lower wages.)

This keeps coming up, so I'm going to address it, even though I think this is the wrong thread.  A falling average mortgage interest rate is correlated to a rising average home cost, for sound reasons.  It's not the only, and perhaps not a major cause of rising home prices; but since most people judge whether they can afford a house not based upon the sale price, but upon their ability to pay the monthly mortgage payment, the long term falling rates have allowed sellers to profit from this effect.  So those who bought a home during a high interest rate period, kept the house for a while, and sold in a much lower interest rate period, almost certainly benefited from regional home values that were rising faster than either median household incomes or inflation.  Conversely, a long period of rising interest rates (which is literally the best cause scenario for the US economy overall, and far from the most likely) is just as likely to suppress those home values in a similar fashion.  So buying a house now, even with ridiculously low rates locked it, almost guarantees that the value of the home will not keep up with inflation going forward.

In short, a home is a place to live, not an asset.  Plan accordingly, Millennials.

[brute]

Eh there is some truth in the stereotypes but I think there are real issues millenials face that prior generations haven't such has large student debt and living/working in a more competitive global world (resulting in higher home prices and lower wages.)

This keeps coming up, so I'm going to address it, even though I think this is the wrong thread.  A falling average mortgage interest rate is correlated to a rising average home cost, for sound reasons.  It's not the only, and perhaps not a major cause of rising home prices; but since most people judge whether they can afford a house not based upon the sale price, but upon their ability to pay the monthly mortgage payment, the long term falling rates have allowed sellers to profit from this effect.  So those who bought a home during a high interest rate period, kept the house for a while, and sold in a much lower interest rate period, almost certainly benefited from regional home values that were rising faster than either median household incomes or inflation.  Conversely, a long period of rising interest rates (which is literally the best cause scenario for the US economy overall, and far from the most likely) is just as likely to suppress those home values in a similar fashion.  So buying a house now, even with ridiculously low rates locked it, almost guarantees that the value of the home will not keep up with inflation going forward.

In short, a home is a place to live, not an asset.  Plan accordingly, Millennials.

I need a large house for my safe space. Come at me oldsters.

[GoingConcern]

Eh there is some truth in the stereotypes but I think there are real issues millenials face that prior generations haven't such has large student debt and living/working in a more competitive global world (resulting in higher home prices and lower wages.)

This keeps coming up, so I'm going to address it, even though I think this is the wrong thread.  A falling average mortgage interest rate is correlated to a rising average home cost, for sound reasons.  It's not the only, and perhaps not a major cause of rising home prices; but since most people judge whether they can afford a house not based upon the sale price, but upon their ability to pay the monthly mortgage payment, the long term falling rates have allowed sellers to profit from this effect.  So those who bought a home during a high interest rate period, kept the house for a while, and sold in a much lower interest rate period, almost certainly benefited from regional home values that were rising faster than either median household incomes or inflation.  Conversely, a long period of rising interest rates (which is literally the best cause scenario for the US economy overall, and far from the most likely) is just as likely to suppress those home values in a similar fashion.  So buying a house now, even with ridiculously low rates locked it, almost guarantees that the value of the home will not keep up with inflation going forward.

In short, a home is a place to live, not an asset.  Plan accordingly, Millennials.

Well interest rates are one component to home prices, but I'm a bit confused with your advice.  Basically are you implying to rent or buy a modest homes since home prices will not keep with inflation?  I do tend to agree especially with your interest rates analysis but I will also add another factor to consider is the lack of housing inventory in most market contributing to high prices.  I don't have any real hard science to back up this assertion but when/if the older generations start selling their homes this could lead revert to a buyer's market due to the oversupply of homes. 

[Quidnon?]

but I'm a bit confused with your advice.  Basically are you implying to rent or buy a modest homes since home prices will not keep with inflation?

No, I'm saying don't let the mantra "buy a home, it's an investment" influence your decisions about whether to buy a home or rent one.

I do tend to agree especially with your interest rates analysis but I will also add another factor to consider is the lack of housing inventory in most market contributing to high prices.  I don't have any real hard science to back up this assertion but when/if the older generations start selling their homes this could lead revert to a buyer's market due to the oversupply of homes.

And that would be a good thing, I think. 

[LadyStache in Baja]

Two things. 

1. The hipster thing.  Have you guys even seen pictures of the dads of millenials from the 70s?  Beard? Check.  Short cut-off jeans? Check.  Weird knee-high tube socks?  Yep.  Flannels?! Yes. 

They were hipsters before we ever were, so stfu.

2. Texting.  omg, just stop.  Because you know what, back when the telephone was invented I bet all the oldsters were whining about how lazy everyone is because back in their day, they wrote LETTERS.  "Gees!  It's like people need instant gratification these days, they just pick up the phone and talk to people instead of taking the time to sit down and think deep thoughts and elaborate and expound their feelings into an actual letter and send it in the mail and wait for the reply. "Pretty soon people won't even know how to read or write", they probably said. 

[dividendman]

The boomers could have made the world much better. They took the longest Era of world peace and greatest economic expansion and squandered it. It's sad that the greatest generation gave birth to the worst one. Oh well, the Xers and millenials will fix it.

Oh, they also gave us Trump. Thanks boomers.

[Cwadda]

Fuck this. Don't apologize for other people.

Did I miss something?  I thought that this was mostly a joke thread, anyway.  Perhaps "thin skinned" should be added to that list of generational faults.

Yes it is...or was...you're not missing anything.

[Paul der Krake]

The boomers could have made the world much better. They took the longest Era of world peace and greatest economic expansion and squandered it. It's sad that the greatest generation gave birth to the worst one. Oh well, the Xers and millenials will fix it.

Oh, they also gave us Trump. Thanks boomers.

Are you from reddit?

[little_brown_dog]

The only concern I have for millennials and newer generations isn’t about laziness or entitlement, but actual mental health. We are seeing strikingly high rates of emotional problems or maladjustment in college age young people. In part it could be that we were taught to speak up and seek help, so maybe more millennials are actually open to getting help whereas before people might have been more inclined to hide their problems. But that wouldn’t account for all of it. There does seem to be a legitimate increased level of emotional fragility/lack of psychological resilience in newer generations that is legitimately harming them. There are many studies and surveys out there documenting this phenomenon.

An anecdote: I have a close friend who is a clinical psychologist and they have mentioned repeatedly that they are shocked at the numbers of otherwise healthy/successful/bright young people who are seeking help for depression/anxiety/inability to cope. These kids struggle greatly with normal aspects of adulthood, fear failure, overthink everything, and end up feeling terrible about themselves at the littlest set back or learning experience. Most of this person’s work with these kids focuses getting them to gain confidence in their ability to operate independently and to actually handle failures and setbacks without going into a tailspin. It used to be that this person’s clientele consisted predominantly of middle aged or older people who had rough childhoods, ongoing chronic mental health problems, or who had experienced a severe shock like a divorce, death, illness, etc. Now they spend more and more time just helping younger and younger people function normally regarding day to day adulthood and the transition to adulthood – navigating dating/relationships, job hunting, handling conflicts at work, etc. If anything, these kids suffer from a grave sense of inadequacy and fear of failure, not arrogance. Narcissism when it does manifest, and obsession with oneself, are notoriously linked with deep seeded insecurities.

Please note, I don’t think this is the young generations’ fault, I think like any other public health phenomenon it is the result of many societal and cultural factors.

[MandalayVA]

The only concern I have for millennials and newer generations isn’t about laziness or entitlement, but actual mental health. We are seeing strikingly high rates of emotional problems or maladjustment in college age young people. In part it could be that we were taught to speak up and seek help, so maybe more millennials are actually open to getting help whereas before people might have been more inclined to hide their problems. But that wouldn’t account for all of it. There does seem to be a legitimate increased level of emotional fragility/lack of psychological resilience in newer generations that is legitimately harming them. There are many studies and surveys out there documenting this phenomenon.

An anecdote: I have a close friend who is a clinical psychologist and they have mentioned repeatedly that they are shocked at the numbers of otherwise healthy/successful/bright young people who are seeking help for depression/anxiety/inability to cope. These kids struggle greatly with normal aspects of adulthood, fear failure, overthink everything, and end up feeling terrible about themselves at the littlest set back or learning experience. Most of this person’s work with these kids focuses getting them to gain confidence in their ability to operate independently and to actually handle failures and setbacks without going into a tailspin. It used to be that this person’s clientele consisted predominantly of middle aged or older people who had rough childhoods, ongoing chronic mental health problems, or who had experienced a severe shock like a divorce, death, illness, etc. Now they spend more and more time just helping younger and younger people function normally regarding day to day adulthood and the transition to adulthood – navigating dating/relationships, job hunting, handling conflicts at work, etc. If anything, these kids suffer from a grave sense of inadequacy and fear of failure, not arrogance. Narcissism when it does manifest, and obsession with oneself, are notoriously linked with deep seeded insecurities.

Please note, I don’t think this is the young generations’ fault, I think like any other public health phenomenon it is the result of many societal and cultural factors.

This describes what you're writing about perfectly:

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are-unhappy.html

[AvisJinx]

Something my organization has run into over the past few years with young new hires is the unrealistic expectation that recognition, promotions and success should be immediate. Not something that takes a significant amount of time, commitment and work, and occasionally involves frustrating setbacks.  In just the past two years alone we've been through 6 administrative assistants in two positions; their average employment time: 6 months. Every single one of them came in with the attitude that they were the be-all-end-all star employee deserving of a fast track to a better position.

To be honest, I don't necessarily think of this as a generational issue, but one that comes from lack of experience and youthful exuberance. However,  I do think the Millennial concept of a fulfilling career is unique and somewhat self-defeating.

[Ynari]

The only concern I have for millennials and newer generations isn’t about laziness or entitlement, but actual mental health. We are seeing strikingly high rates of emotional problems or maladjustment in college age young people. In part it could be that we were taught to speak up and seek help, so maybe more millennials are actually open to getting help whereas before people might have been more inclined to hide their problems. But that wouldn’t account for all of it. There does seem to be a legitimate increased level of emotional fragility/lack of psychological resilience in newer generations that is legitimately harming them. There are many studies and surveys out there documenting this phenomenon.

An anecdote: I have a close friend who is a clinical psychologist and they have mentioned repeatedly that they are shocked at the numbers of otherwise healthy/successful/bright young people who are seeking help for depression/anxiety/inability to cope. These kids struggle greatly with normal aspects of adulthood, fear failure, overthink everything, and end up feeling terrible about themselves at the littlest set back or learning experience. Most of this person’s work with these kids focuses getting them to gain confidence in their ability to operate independently and to actually handle failures and setbacks without going into a tailspin. It used to be that this person’s clientele consisted predominantly of middle aged or older people who had rough childhoods, ongoing chronic mental health problems, or who had experienced a severe shock like a divorce, death, illness, etc. Now they spend more and more time just helping younger and younger people function normally regarding day to day adulthood and the transition to adulthood – navigating dating/relationships, job hunting, handling conflicts at work, etc. If anything, these kids suffer from a grave sense of inadequacy and fear of failure, not arrogance. Narcissism when it does manifest, and obsession with oneself, are notoriously linked with deep seeded insecurities.

Please note, I don’t think this is the young generations’ fault, I think like any other public health phenomenon it is the result of many societal and cultural factors.

I'm of the "getting help in times my parent's wouldn't have" cohort, and I definitely think that to some extent the things I do to cope (including many MMM tenants and designing my lifestyle with purpose) really come across as entitlement. It may seem entitled that I want a short commute but really I'm just prioritizing commute length over things like pay/rent costs because commute makes a bigger impact in my mental health than the money. I think to a certain extent, young people (just like any other cohort) are questioning the values of society and how they align with their own wellbeing. Look at all the things millennials have apparently "ruined" things from diamonds and paper napkins to the olympics. I think it comes partly from a changing cultural understanding of value, but more importantly there are just more options and more competition for those businesses and they're failing to keep up. The articles rarely talk about what the companies are doing to stay relevant in a world where comparison shopping is easy and online entertainment is abundant.

[Quidnon?]

I think to a certain extent, young people (just like any other cohort) are questioning the values of society and how they align with their own wellbeing. Look at all the things millennials have apparently "ruined" things from diamonds and paper napkins to the olympics. I think it comes partly from a changing cultural understanding of value, but more importantly there are just more options and more competition for those businesses and they're failing to keep up. The articles rarely talk about what the companies are doing to stay relevant in a world where comparison shopping is easy and online entertainment is abundant.

That was Adam, in particular.  Adam ruined diamonds...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU

[Metric Mouse]

That guy ruins so many things...

[ender]

Something my organization has run into over the past few years with young new hires is the unrealistic expectation that recognition, promotions and success should be immediate. Not something that takes a significant amount of time, commitment and work, and occasionally involves frustrating setbacks.  In just the past two years alone we've been through 6 administrative assistants in two positions; their average employment time: 6 months. Every single one of them came in with the attitude that they were the be-all-end-all star employee deserving of a fast track to a better position.

This issue is systemic in how the job market works. Millenials understand how it works and have less employer loyalty. Given the following two options which would you pick?

• Work for XYZ Corp for 10 years and eventually get a promotion/decent raise
• Work for XYZ Corp for 3 years and then get a promotion/raise by applying to ABC Corp

Millenials see employers consistently cutting benefits and people and don't have loyalty and are also smart enough to realize that once you have a relatively small amount of experience, you actually are marketable elsewhere (normally considerably more than in your current company).

Employers delude themselves by acting as if their employees are all too entitled, when often that delusion doesn't match the reality that their previous employees actually did and easily can find a better job elsewhere, whether in position or pay.

[iris lily]

Eh there is some truth in the stereotypes but I think there are real issues millenials face that prior generations haven't such has large student debt and living/working in a more competitive global world (resulting in higher home prices and lower wages.)

This keeps coming up, so I'm going to address it, even though I think this is the wrong thread.  A falling average mortgage interest rate is correlated to a rising average home cost, for sound reasons.  It's not the only, and perhaps not a major cause of rising home prices; but since most people judge whether they can afford a house not based upon the sale price, but upon their ability to pay the monthly mortgage payment, the long term falling rates have allowed sellers to profit from this effect.  So those who bought a home during a high interest rate period, kept the house for a while, and sold in a much lower interest rate period, almost certainly benefited from regional home values that were rising faster than either median household incomes or inflation.  Conversely, a long period of rising interest rates (which is literally the best cause scenario for the US economy overall, and far from the most likely) is just as likely to suppress those home values in a similar fashion.  So buying a house now, even with ridiculously low rates locked it, almost guarantees that the value of the home will not keep up with inflation going forward.

In short, a home is a place to live, not an asset.  Plan accordingly, Millennials.

I need a large house for my safe space. Come at me oldsters.

Hahaha! Ok, funny!

[iris lily]

We are far deeper into a society who's amenities are afford by a massive debt cycle which most of us are working hard to escape or avoid. The burden of debt on young professionals even ones who are resist consumer impulses are far greater than on our parents generation.

Wage growth is mostly a joke unless you start a business so the debt some chose to be saddled with early in their careers does not get easier to deal with over time. A lack of inflation is a big part of that issue.

Really? Mortage rates of 12% anyone? Cars that cost more than they do today and broke in 1/4 the time? How much does a pair of jeans cost today compared to 60s? The median student loan is just over $20k. Is that really unbearable?? A college degree will net you over a million dollars more over a lifetime. That $20k has an insane return! And with high inflation you get high interest rates, so I only see how you could inflate away your debt with a mortgage.

My theory is that "millennials" (really most people) have more debt now is because they choose to spend money on more and more expensive shit. Because there are so many more things to spend money on. There were simply fewer options in the 60s, 70s 80s etc, and perhaps not as much pressure to own 'everything'

Yes.

Back  in the day when I was making about $14,000 annually I looked at buying a house that had a 15% loan rate. I dont remember the cost of the house for sure, but I think it was $35,000. That same house today goes for around $95,000 and my job at the same place pays $35,000 annually.
These are all comparable figures, and may even be a better deal today, when you figure the monthly payments  at such a high interest rate back then.

As a comparison to old and new educational costs, I figured out the cost TODAY of my graduate degree, doing it exactly the way I did it which means
1) stay in a dorm
2) crash at parental home between semesters and during breaks
3) find little jobs for a couple of weeks, sell plasma, dont drive or maintain a car while in school

 That cost at a state university for my exact grwduate degree, today, is $25,000. That is about the cost of a new automobile, and well worth it, and not that hard to pay off if one borrows the entire amount.

[AvisJinx]

Something my organization has run into over the past few years with young new hires is the unrealistic expectation that recognition, promotions and success should be immediate. Not something that takes a significant amount of time, commitment and work, and occasionally involves frustrating setbacks.  In just the past two years alone we've been through 6 administrative assistants in two positions; their average employment time: 6 months. Every single one of them came in with the attitude that they were the be-all-end-all star employee deserving of a fast track to a better position.

This issue is systemic in how the job market works. Millenials understand how it works and have less employer loyalty. Given the following two options which would you pick?

• Work for XYZ Corp for 10 years and eventually get a promotion/decent raise
• Work for XYZ Corp for 3 years and then get a promotion/raise by applying to ABC Corp

Millenials see employers consistently cutting benefits and people and don't have loyalty and are also smart enough to realize that once you have a relatively small amount of experience, you actually are marketable elsewhere (normally considerably more than in your current company).

Employers delude themselves by acting as if their employees are all too entitled, when often that delusion doesn't match the reality that their previous employees actually did and easily can find a better job elsewhere, whether in position or pay.

Though I've heard others say the same or similar, you have a point, however in the case I stated the average stay at my organization in recent years for a younger new hire has been 6 months. Exactly how much transferable experience can you gain in that time? Also I should have mentioned that I work for a nonprofit and for a nonprofit we have better than average benefits which are always discussed at the second or third interview. My organization is also very upfront with every potential applicant so they can make an informed decision. It's nonprofit work after all: you're not going to get rich and it's not glamorous work.

The problem may be these young new hires like the idea of nonprofit work, but once hired they quickly come to the realization that it actually is WORK.  And more often than not it's thankless work. There are no special perks, incentives or additional benefits beyond the basics, but if you stick it out it can be very rewarding and lead to other opportunities down the road. A number of our people move on to leadership positions internally and at other organizations, some have even moved on to political careers. None of them had to put in your example of 10 years, but they did put in the time and effort.

My advice to any young person getting started in the workforce is do your damn research. Look into potential positions and employers. Ask questions (and know ahead of time what you want to ask) at your interviews; you have the right and responsibility to interview your potential employer as well. Also, keep your expectations in check and know what it is you want to accomplish in developing your career.

[ender]

You do have a point, however in the case I stated the average stay at my organization in recent years for a younger new hire has been 6 months. Exactly how much transferable experience can you gain in that time?

Depending on the job, six months is a lot of time to get valuable experience to apply elsewhere. It won't be good value add to the company you worked for, however.

One huge benefit of experience, when you are younger, is being able to see how other companies work and pick/choose things to make your current company better. Six months can do a lot to better your ability to do this. You won't have experience in some regards, but will in others.

The problem may be these young new hires like the idea of nonprofit work, but once hired they quickly come to the realization that it actually is WORK.  And more often than not it's thankless work. There are no special perks, incentives or additional benefits beyond the basics, but if you stick it out it can be very rewarding and lead to other opportunities down the road. A number of our people move on to leadership positions internally and at other organizations, some have even moved on to political careers. None of them had to put in your example of 10 years, but they put in the time and effort. Had they bailed after year because their expectations weren't immediately met, I doubt they would have had the same results.

I really think your attitude and understanding here is incorrect or at least slightly deluded.

It is overwhelmingly easier to have career progression if you are wiling to change companies/organizations, particularly if you are not limited to one geographic area.

[AvisJinx]

You do have a point, however in the case I stated the average stay at my organization in recent years for a younger new hire has been 6 months. Exactly how much transferable experience can you gain in that time?

Depending on the job, six months is a lot of time to get valuable experience to apply elsewhere. It won't be good value add to the company you worked for, however.

One huge benefit of experience, when you are younger, is being able to see how other companies work and pick/choose things to make your current company better. Six months can do a lot to better your ability to do this. You won't have experience in some regards, but will in others.

The problem may be these young new hires like the idea of nonprofit work, but once hired they quickly come to the realization that it actually is WORK.  And more often than not it's thankless work. There are no special perks, incentives or additional benefits beyond the basics, but if you stick it out it can be very rewarding and lead to other opportunities down the road. A number of our people move on to leadership positions internally and at other organizations, some have even moved on to political careers. None of them had to put in your example of 10 years, but they put in the time and effort. Had they bailed after year because their expectations weren't immediately met, I doubt they would have had the same results.

I really think your attitude and understanding here is incorrect or at least slightly deluded.

It is overwhelmingly easier to have career progression if you are wiling to change companies/organizations, particularly if you are not limited to one geographic area.

Ah. You've apparently left a job or two after a few months.

I'll just back out of the conversation now.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

I think Millennials are getting a bad rap.  They have some shortcomings but I find on the whole they are the most honest and ethical generation yet.  That gives me hope for the future.  Integrity matters.

[Cpa Cat]

Depending on who you ask, I may be too old to be a millennial - but just barely. I felt very confined by the slow timeline of career progression. I really didn't want to sit around twiddling my thumbs, waiting for some old dude to finally recognize my greatness and reward me for my efficiency and excellence. I felt strongly that I was awesome, and that I was being held back by bureaucratic notions of how long I needed to be in a job before I got a promotion, or the idea that a position needed to "open up" before I'd be allowed to move on. I had no interest in "doing my time" when the people who had done theirs were slower and less competent than I was.

No thanks.

So I quit. I was FI, so F All Of That Sh!t.

And it turned out I was right - I get paid more while working fewer hours, enjoy myself more, spend less time doing BS now that I'm self employed. It turns out, I'm every bit as awesome as I always thought.

If these 6-month quitter millennials are leaving for better jobs, or are happier, or paid more, then they're right to leave. Life is too short.

[iris lily]

Depending on who you ask, I may be too old to be a millennial - but just barely. I felt very confined by the slow timeline of career progression. I really didn't want to sit around twiddling my thumbs, waiting for some old dude to finally recognize my greatness and reward me for my efficiency and excellence. I felt strongly that I was awesome, and that I was being held back by bureaucratic notions of how long I needed to be in a job before I got a promotion, or the idea that a position needed to "open up" before I'd be allowed to move on. I had no interest in "doing my time" when the people who had done theirs were slower and less competent than I was.

No thanks.

So I quit. I was FI, so F All Of That Sh!t.

And it turned out I was right - I get paid more while working fewer hours, enjoy myself more, spend less time doing BS now that I'm self employed. It turns out, I'm every bit as awesome as I always thought.

If these 6-month quitter millennials are leaving for better jobs, or are happier, or paid more, then they're right to leave. Life is too short.

Absolutely! If they can learn it all in 6 months, go forth and  get a new job.

It's just that, umm, they don't learn it all. But they could have learned 60-75% of it, and perhaps they arent interested in depth or details.

I hired and supervised a fair number of people over the years and at entry level positions, I told them that I liked them to stay for a year. But after that, I welcome them moving forward n within the organization or outside of the organization. I actually preferred the entry level employees who stayed a fairly short time, they were better employees than long term employees in several ways.

[dividendman]

You do have a point, however in the case I stated the average stay at my organization in recent years for a younger new hire has been 6 months. Exactly how much transferable experience can you gain in that time?

Depending on the job, six months is a lot of time to get valuable experience to apply elsewhere. It won't be good value add to the company you worked for, however.

One huge benefit of experience, when you are younger, is being able to see how other companies work and pick/choose things to make your current company better. Six months can do a lot to better your ability to do this. You won't have experience in some regards, but will in others.

The problem may be these young new hires like the idea of nonprofit work, but once hired they quickly come to the realization that it actually is WORK.  And more often than not it's thankless work. There are no special perks, incentives or additional benefits beyond the basics, but if you stick it out it can be very rewarding and lead to other opportunities down the road. A number of our people move on to leadership positions internally and at other organizations, some have even moved on to political careers. None of them had to put in your example of 10 years, but they put in the time and effort. Had they bailed after year because their expectations weren't immediately met, I doubt they would have had the same results.

I really think your attitude and understanding here is incorrect or at least slightly deluded.

It is overwhelmingly easier to have career progression if you are wiling to change companies/organizations, particularly if you are not limited to one geographic area.

I agree with everything ender has said here. I'm not sure if at 34 I qualify as a millennial, but I've moved across the continent 4 times for work, my longest time at one company has been 5 years (and that was 3 jobs in one company) and each time I've been rewarded very handsomely for quitting.

Although I hate to generalize, "millennials" treating work as an actual work instead of a "family" or the other corporate crap companies try to get the upper hand in the relationship is a good quality, not a bad one.

[ender]

Ah. You've apparently left a job or two after a few months.

I'll just back out of the conversation now.

* ender looks at my resume

Oh, turns out I haven't, guess that's good.

It turns out, I'm every bit as awesome as I always thought.

This is the fundamental problem with the arguments against the "job hopping" idea. They are empty.

In spite of a not insignificant number of people consistently deriding the idea as a horrible idea and terrible for a career, a lot of people have significant success with that approach for a long-term career. Changing employers every ~3-4 years turns out to actually be really beneficial for employees.

[little_brown_dog]

In spite of a not insignificant number of people consistently deriding the idea as a horrible idea and terrible for a career, a lot of people have significant success with that approach for a long-term career. Changing employers every ~3-4 years turns out to actually be really beneficial for employees.

This is absolutely true in clinical research…many jobs except the highest ones (director level requiring MD, PhD etc) just naturally have a lifespan of about 2-4 years (lower level positions 2yrs, higher 4-5yrs). This is due to many factors, including the fact that most people in the lower positions are using the jobs to better position themselves for further additional education (MS, PhD) and often leave within a year or two to get a graduate degree. The ones who stick around can be promoted to lower level managerial positions, but usually they max out their learning opportunities/skills 2-3 years into that role. After that, there is no where to go because the next level is director and those people tend to stay for years/decades, or you need a doctorate to even be considered for such a position. The only thing for these people to do is find a new job, sit around hoping someone creates a new title/role for you to move into, or wait for a director to leave (if you are even eligible for the position). As a result, turnover in clinical research teams is extremely high, and it is not uncommon for an entire team to turn over every 5 years or so.

[Proud Foot]

You do have a point, however in the case I stated the average stay at my organization in recent years for a younger new hire has been 6 months. Exactly how much transferable experience can you gain in that time?

Depending on the job, six months is a lot of time to get valuable experience to apply elsewhere. It won't be good value add to the company you worked for, however.

I agree with ender here.  AvisJinx, in your original post you stated these were for administrative assistant positions.  I have never had one of these jobs but my observation is that these positions are highly dependent on organization and communication rather than technical/detailed skills or knowledge.  For a position requiring those skills you would have a point.  Also do you know why those employees left?  They could have taken the job so they could earn money and gain experience while trying to get a job in the field they want to pursue.

[afuera]

I don't care if the old people complain about snake people. They've been doing that since the dawn of time.

But self-righteous waffle-heads using an apology that nobody asked for as a way to show how much better they are than everyone else? Go step on a lego. OP, if you want to improve, focus on making yourself badass and quit dumping on other people.

Just stopping by to say that "Go step on a Lego" is my new favorite insult and I plan on stealing it shamelessly and using it daily.

[Cpa Cat]

I have a quick Admin Assistant story.

I started helping out a company with accounting and they had a receptionist. They wanted her to take on more office-related responsibilities so they hired me to spend some time training her to use Quickbooks. We basically added one task per week for her to learn, and it didn't take long for her to be competently performing AP/AR/bookkeeping/light payroll. She even decided to go take a couple of seminars/classes at the local community college on her own dime.

She was paid $9 an hour. But with her new skills, she could easily be making $12/hr elsewhere. If that next job emphasized Quickbooks skills, she could easily upgrade again within 6 months to a $15/hr job.

But her current employer didn't want to give her a raise. Her boss felt entitled to her new skills because they had paid (not a whole lot - I probably billed less than $500) to train her. In fact, when she asked for a raise to reflect her new responsibilities, he decided to back away from training her to learn more skills, so that her progress would be hampered.

Here was a competent, driven, quick-learner - the unicorn of random receptionists - and instead of recognizing that and utilizing it, this employer chose to do the opposite.

So why shouldn't she leave? By staying, she not only forgoes immediate income, but she forgoes experience that would lead to additional income in the near future. And so what if she job-hops a couple of times to get from $9 to $15 an hour in a year or two? That extra $6 per hour makes a heck of difference to someone's life.

Her boss took the position that she "owed" them. He refused to give her a reference. I told her to put me in her resume instead. I don't believe in indentured servitude. 

[little_brown_dog]

I have a quick Admin Assistant story.

I started helping out a company with accounting and they had a receptionist. They wanted her to take on more office-related responsibilities so they hired me to spend some time training her to use Quickbooks. We basically added one task per week for her to learn, and it didn't take long for her to be competently performing AP/AR/bookkeeping/light payroll. She even decided to go take a couple of seminars/classes at the local community college on her own dime.

She was paid $9 an hour. But with her new skills, she could easily be making $12/hr elsewhere. If that next job emphasized Quickbooks skills, she could easily upgrade again within 6 months to a $15/hr job.

But her current employer didn't want to give her a raise. Her boss felt entitled to her new skills because they had paid (not a whole lot - I probably billed less than $500) to train her. In fact, when she asked for a raise to reflect her new responsibilities, he decided to back away from training her to learn more skills, so that her progress would be hampered.

Here was a competent, driven, quick-learner - the unicorn of random receptionists - and instead of recognizing that and utilizing it, this employer chose to do the opposite.

So why shouldn't she leave? By staying, she not only forgoes immediate income, but she forgoes experience that would lead to additional income in the near future. And so what if she job-hops a couple of times to get from $9 to $15 an hour in a year or two? That extra $6 per hour makes a heck of difference to someone's life.

Her boss took the position that she "owed" them. He refused to give her a reference. I told her to put me in her resume instead. I don't believe in indentured servitude.

Yup. I once watched as an extremely dedicated low level employee was denied a promotion/raise. This girl put in 150% effort all the time…she was so obliging, so dedicated, so detail oriented, and she was doing all manner of higher level tasks that were put on her because she was a superstar. After a year or two, she worked up the nerve to bring up the possibility of a small promotion/raise (which was totally appropriate) and she was shot down. Literally all this girl was asking for was to be given an appropriate title in line with what she was doing. So after that disappointment and hurt, she naturally scaled back her investment to be more in line with a great employee, but she no longer went out of her way to bend over backwards. Management made it clear that they didn’t really value her as much as they said they did. The managers were so confused and disappointed at her change in behavior…how dare she not continue to give 150% after they shot her down!? They started even saying things like they were having “problems” with her because they were so accustomed to just treating her like a doormat.

Seriously my old workplace was so toxic they could make a satire out of it.

[Cwadda]

I think to a certain extent, young people (just like any other cohort) are questioning the values of society and how they align with their own wellbeing. Look at all the things millennials have apparently "ruined" things from diamonds and paper napkins to the olympics. I think it comes partly from a changing cultural understanding of value, but more importantly there are just more options and more competition for those businesses and they're failing to keep up. The articles rarely talk about what the companies are doing to stay relevant in a world where comparison shopping is easy and online entertainment is abundant.

That was Adam, in particular.  Adam ruined diamonds...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU

The thing about this show I can never get over is how everything is filmed. They shoot this show like a straight-up movie. It's not a bad thing, just extremely noticeable IMO.

[Metric Mouse]

I think to a certain extent, young people (just like any other cohort) are questioning the values of society and how they align with their own wellbeing. Look at all the things millennials have apparently "ruined" things from diamonds and paper napkins to the olympics. I think it comes partly from a changing cultural understanding of value, but more importantly there are just more options and more competition for those businesses and they're failing to keep up. The articles rarely talk about what the companies are doing to stay relevant in a world where comparison shopping is easy and online entertainment is abundant.

That was Adam, in particular.  Adam ruined diamonds...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU

The thing about this show I can never get over is how everything is filmed. They shoot this show like a straight-up movie. It's not a bad thing, just extremely noticeable IMO.

I find the production pretty cheesy - I think there are better ways to present the information than the exact format it uses, but it's not the worst thing in the whole world.

[TightFistedScot]

So I am a millenial, frustrated by/judgmental of lots of folks in my own generation. At 31, some of my friends call me "gramps" and actually do joke that by 35 I will be sitting on my porch shaking my stick at kids.

However, even when I am feeling critical of some of my peers for their financial decisions, or what I view as laziness, I remind myself that there actually is a very real crisis in terms of the availability of full-time salaried work. We were told to go to university in order to get a job. But after university, there is rarely work outside of short-term contracts with no benefits.

Here's a bit of longitudinal research from Canada's largest city (Toronto) to contextualize this conversation. Every city will be a bit unique, but generally in North America, the gap between rich and poor is widening, the super rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is shrinking. This can not exclusively be explained by laziness and poor financial decisions. There are larger structural forces at play that affect access to good paying jobs with benefits (these elusive factory jobs you speak of).

This study, called the three cities, looks at changes in income from the 1970s-2005. CMA = Census Metropolitan Area.
http://3cities.neighbourhoodchange.ca/

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I think alot of what older generations are seeing is the effects of multi-generational food and income security.  Our values ended up being prioritized slightly differently because we can.  Indeed, the right answer to what to do in a situation where you don't actually need to be entirely self-reliant is to make use of the resources available to you.  So moving back in with parents after graduating college is seen by the boomers and x-ers as failure to launch, when in reality, it is just our rejection of their rejection of multi-generational living.  What is actually a great trend in financial planning and efficient use of resources gets derided as something bad.

In regards to the workplace, 60 year old assholes who think being close to retirement means criticizing me for getting the same work done in a quarter of the time because I can still move around well, know how to troubleshoot a printer, and have no qualms with researching better/faster ways to do things as lazy or entitled because I don't work "as hard" as they do are definitely a thing.  We've all encountered the slacker snake person, but they're working at subway under their equally-slacker boomer subway manager.

What is interesting is that you encounter older folks who have been with a company for 30 years and finally got that office director job after 30 years of shit and cola, plan to camp out in the job for another 15 years, and are surprised when their new hires leave after a couple of years.

Does any of this sound familiar?

1.  Physically devastated by inactivity and poor diet (maybe a smoking/drinking problem), consistently grumpy, barely capable 55 year old "up for promotion."
2.  52 year old twice divorced once widowed sweet old lady who calls everyone dear and insists on a flip phone.
3.  63 year old who only speaks in meetings to say "that's not my job."
4.  47 year old "up and comer" hoping to compete with Mr. Grumps #1 for the top slot.

All sitting around the room talking about how the "short timers" don't "stick it out" and how loyalty pays off.  Nevermind that the 80 something employees that have come through the ten man office in the last 15 years are all making far more having moved on to take advantage of opportunities that were never going to exist within the confines of a 10-man workplace.

Add to that the mentality of "you're moving up or out" where, despite being stuck at a certain level because no additional opportunities are available, it isn't OK to just chill at that level, you must be seen to be striving.

There are a preponderance of workplaces where you are expected to be actively seeking to advance, unhappy with your current station, but content with the pace of advancement (or lack thereof).  Happy employees are viewed as being deficient (lazy, entitled).

No surprise that many snake people (just like in the generations before them) are calling bullshit and trying their best to win given the rules of the game they were born into.  We grew up amongst the despair of our parents when the corporate pensions were all raided, finished school just in time for a near total economic collapse, and have no inflation to look forward to for mitigating our debt.  Work hard in school they said, get a good job with benefits they said, then we got out and there are no pensions, and benefits aren't really tied to employers (and it was fucked up that they ever were).  Oh and by the way, you have to save for your own retirement because the previous generations raided social security too, to pay for (as far as I can tell) hookers and blow.

At this point, it isn't entitlement to just make the best of the (admittedly) awesome situation we find ourselves in.  Companies don't reward loyalty?  I won't be loyal.  Saving money for retirement is a better financial decision than buying a house?  I'll wait to buy a house then.  No paid overtime and I can finish all of my work before the end of the day?  Fucking see you tomorrow.  Absolutely no reason to do it the low-tech old way that you understand but that takes three times as long?  Going to do it better, faster, and take the extra time for myself, because you aren't going to pay me for being a better employee, you still think my pay should be related to the theoretical performance of everyone based on everyone's experience and situation, and not on the actual results of the actual work being done.

The assumptions made about the knowledge of the younger generation belies an utter contempt.  How vapid and useless must they have been at our age to consider us so?  I understand what is happening, but that doesn't mean I need to excuse it.  Respect for my elders keeps me from calling them fat, old, and lazy.  It lets me appreciate that after 40 years of doing it one way I might also be reluctant to embrace a way that doesn't involve paper.  I get it.  But respect for my elders won't keep me at a job where useless people make more than me.  I will quietly exit stage left, and leave them to their delusion that whenever anyone leaves a situation the reasons must lie with faults in the departed.

[Quidnon?]

So I am a millenial, frustrated by/judgmental of lots of folks in my own generation. At 31, some of my friends call me "gramps" and actually do joke that by 35 I will be sitting on my porch shaking my stick at kids.

However, even when I am feeling critical of some of my peers for their financial decisions, or what I view as laziness, I remind myself that there actually is a very real crisis in terms of the availability of full-time salaried work. We were told to go to university in order to get a job. But after university, there is rarely work outside of short-term contracts with no benefits.

This is definitely a factor, but keep in mind that, while the professional level of work has decreased relative to the working age population, the effect that college is a racket that promises high flying jobs but only delivers an entry level corporate cubicle at best is not a new phenomenon.  It happened to me, also.  A larger percentage of your generation than mine, but we were both sold a bill of goods by higher education.  Aaron Clarey is an economist that freelances on Youtube under the moniker "asshole consulting" or "captain capitalism", and his general advice is no one should assume that the corporate world will take you seriously until at least age 30.  That advice rings true with my own experiences.  Clarey also has an excellent book on the relative values of particular degrees called "Worthless" that is worth it's weight in gold for anyone not yet graduated from high school.

[NoStacheOhio]

So I am a millenial, frustrated by/judgmental of lots of folks in my own generation. At 31, some of my friends call me "gramps" and actually do joke that by 35 I will be sitting on my porch shaking my stick at kids.

However, even when I am feeling critical of some of my peers for their financial decisions, or what I view as laziness, I remind myself that there actually is a very real crisis in terms of the availability of full-time salaried work. We were told to go to university in order to get a job. But after university, there is rarely work outside of short-term contracts with no benefits.

This is definitely a factor, but keep in mind that, while the professional level of work has decreased relative to the working age population, the effect that college is a racket that promises high flying jobs but only delivers an entry level corporate cubicle at best is not a new phenomenon.  It happened to me, also.  A larger percentage of your generation than mine, but we were both sold a bill of goods by higher education.  Aaron Clarey is an economist that freelances on Youtube under the moniker "asshole consulting" or "captain capitalism", and his general advice is no one should assume that the corporate world will take you seriously until at least age 30.  That advice rings true with my own experiences.  Clarey also has an excellent book on the relative values of particular degrees called "Worthless" that is worth it's weight in gold for anyone not yet graduated from high school.

Make that 40 if you're in flyover country.

[FINate]

I'm a millennial and the thing I laugh about the most is when we are considered the "participation trophy" generation or when someone makes the comment about our generation saying "that's what happens when you give everyone a prize".  We did not make those rules! I am sure some complained about not getting a prize or winning, but then, IMO, it's on the parents to use that as a teaching moment rather than changing things so everyone is a "winner".

Disclaimer - I was never involved in activities where everyone got the same prize for participating regardless of the results. Where I grew up you were rewarded on your performance whether it be academics, sports, music contests, 4-H.

Totally agree it's the parents fault! I help run a sporting club and we have a number of parents each year who request their children go into different teams because some of the coaches "put too much focus on training and winning" or "discipline them in a manner that is not in keeping with our values" (this lady was complaining about the coach raising his voice - well duh, if your kid is running off doing cartwheels and playing in the dirt of course there will be yelling).

The demands for trophies and for acknowledgment from parents are out of control. We give participation trophies up to 10's. Over that age it goes on performance.

You don't get rewarded just for showing up.

THIS^^^

Simon Sinek on Millennials in the Workplace calls this "failed parenting strategies" and it has a whole range of negative side effects. Let's be clear, this is the fault of Gen-X parents, not Millennials.

[Quidnon?]

Simon Sinek on Millennials in the Workplace calls this "failed parenting strategies" and it has a whole range of negative side effects. Let's be clear, this is the fault of Gen-X parents, not Millennials.

There is one problem with that theory, these stereotypes were developed due to the attitudes of the early Millennials, many of whom were the later children of the 'Yuppie' Boomers of the 1980's; or worse, their only children of couples who waited until their 40's to have kids.  Either way, their parents had waited until they had already developed quite a lot of wealth and income, so these early Millennials grew up in functionally wealthy households, only to be dumped into the professional economy of the 2000's.  Which actually wasn't terrible, but there were so many of the other, less financially sound, Boomers that had no ability or plans to retire from their jobs.  So there was really no room for Gen-x to advance out of entry level postions, and therefore no room for Millennials to get a foothold on a corporate career until at least the 2010'.

[RangerOne]

Its a bit of a simplification to say X set of college degrees are worthless. People just need realistic expectations of what your career path is considering your chosen degree. Some degrees like philosophy in the corporate world don't sell themselves like an technical science degree or MBA might. And none of them qualify you for anything but entry level positions. You have to be a bit of a sales men if you want a job where your education is indirectly related. Sometimes even if it is.

Four year degrees in almost any standard major are considered the bar for being eligible for working in a salaried position at most companies for better or worse. So most degrees are worth something.

My advice to young people is be conservative as possible on debt for school or training because no one can guarantee you a high salary. Unless your parents are rich, or you have a killer scholarship, you may not want to go the Brown University to get an English degree even if you get accepted.

If you hate your job post college or your degree doesn't workout don't be afraid to look into other job markets and see if you can plan to enhance your education or training. You can open a lot of new doors by tacking on a masters or MBA to help make your entry level resume relevant.

If you are in college find internships or research positions. These are the easiest job interviews you will ever have and it makes your first entry level position much easier to get since you make friend in the field. If you cant find an internship or entry level position, this is a good sign you may want to reconsider your major if you want to find work.

Also do not buy into professional schools without at least talking to some recent graduates. Many higher education tracks like pharmacy schools are businesses and will paint a rosy picture to get you to sign up for their high cost programs with little guarantee of stimulating or high paying work. Get a feel for the current job market before committing.

Keep your nose clean with regards to alcohol and drugs. Stupid shit like DUIs I have seen ruin peoples job prospects in an entire state, especially in the medical field. If you do fuck up, consider not going into a field that will hold a DUI deeply against you.

[FINate]

Simon Sinek on Millennials in the Workplace calls this "failed parenting strategies" and it has a whole range of negative side effects. Let's be clear, this is the fault of Gen-X parents, not Millennials.

There is one problem with that theory, these stereotypes were developed due to the attitudes of the early Millennials, many of whom were the later children of the 'Yuppie' Boomers of the 1980's; or worse, their only children of couples who waited until their 40's to have kids.  Either way, their parents had waited until they had already developed quite a lot of wealth and income, so these early Millennials grew up in functionally wealthy households, only to be dumped into the professional economy of the 2000's.  Which actually wasn't terrible, but there were so many of the other, less financially sound, Boomers that had no ability or plans to retire from their jobs.  So there was really no room for Gen-x to advance out of entry level postions, and therefore no room for Millennials to get a foothold on a corporate career until at least the 2010'.

Sure, so Gen-X and Boomer parents. I guess it depends on how you define each generation.

[Metric Mouse]

Keep your nose clean with regards to alcohol and drugs. Stupid shit like DUIs I have seen ruin peoples job prospects in an entire state, especially in the medical field. If you do fuck up, consider not going into a field that will hold a DUI deeply against you.

This is sound advice. One can often go back to school to get a new degree. It's very hard to go back and clean that DUI off of one's record.

[Quidnon?]

Its a bit of a simplification to say X set of college degrees are worthless. People just need realistic expectations of what your career path is considering your chosen degree.

There is some truth to that, but the point of the book is to break down the long held belief that a college degree will average an additional one million Dollars over a working career.  Which is true enough, but it's not evenly distributed among degree types, so it's a useless statistic unto itself.  There are a number of (unfortunately very common today) degrees that have a near zero or net negative market worth, once the costs of tuition and the lost years of income (compared to a high school graduate that enters into the workforce after graduation) are considered.  Some degrees have an absolutely astronomical net average advantage over the high school graduate, but they are not always the one's you think of.  Not lawyers or doctors, as an example; which both remain net positive worth degrees, but both are hampered in our modern economy.  Lawyers from an over-abundance of degree holding young adults with zero working experience, and doctors from a very long educational period combined with an over-abundance of labor regulations & restrictions on their field.  An example of a net-negative degree is a bachelor's in Woman's Studies, which only has a market value in higher education itself, and not at all without an accompanying doctorate degree of some kind, so they are more abundant than the positions they qualify the possessor for.  Supply & demand are still in play, even with degrees.

Some degrees like philosophy in the corporate world don't sell themselves like an technical science degree or MBA might. And none of them qualify you for anything but entry level positions. You have to be a bit of a sales men if you want a job where your education is indirectly related. Sometimes even if it is.

And MBA is another example of a near worthless degree.  There are just too many of them.

Four year degrees in almost any standard major are considered the bar for being eligible for working in a salaried position at most companies for better or worse. So most degrees are worth something.

Most degrees are worth something, but it's a falsehood that a bachelor's degree is required before entering the workforce.  I've worked in several corporate environments, and am aware of how many others work, and those that require a bachelor's degree to enter management will generally offer tuition repayments for existing employees; so as a career path, the stand-alone bachelor's degree in pursuit of a corporate management position is not of higher value than the path where a high school graduate gets that entry-level cog position then works their way towards a lower management position, maybe taking night classes on the company's dime.  Every company that I've ever worked for favors existing employees who pursued an education while working for them.

My advice to young people is be conservative as possible on debt for school or training because no one can guarantee you a high salary. Unless your parents are rich, or you have a killer scholarship, you may not want to go the Brown University to get an English degree even if you get accepted.

If you hate your job post college or your degree doesn't workout don't be afraid to look into other job markets and see if you can plan to enhance your education or training. You can open a lot of new doors by tacking on a masters or MBA to help make your entry level resume relevant.

Just remember, it's still an entry level job.

[I'm a red panda]

And MBA is another example of a near worthless degree.  There are just too many of them.

Are you calculating this as the EV of an MBA, over the set of all MBAs? 

Because so many jobs require an MBA (vs just a BBA)- so the degree is not worthless if you get one of those jobs for having it.

[Quidnon?]

And MBA is another example of a near worthless degree.  There are just too many of them.

Are you calculating this as the EV of an MBA, over the set of all MBAs? 

Because so many jobs require an MBA (vs just a BBA)- so the degree is not worthless if you get one of those jobs for having it.

I didn't calculate it, it's in the book I mentioned.

[boy_bye]

The only concern I have for millennials and newer generations isn’t about laziness or entitlement, but actual mental health. We are seeing strikingly high rates of emotional problems or maladjustment in college age young people. In part it could be that we were taught to speak up and seek help, so maybe more millennials are actually open to getting help whereas before people might have been more inclined to hide their problems. But that wouldn’t account for all of it. There does seem to be a legitimate increased level of emotional fragility/lack of psychological resilience in newer generations that is legitimately harming them. There are many studies and surveys out there documenting this phenomenon.

An anecdote: I have a close friend who is a clinical psychologist and they have mentioned repeatedly that they are shocked at the numbers of otherwise healthy/successful/bright young people who are seeking help for depression/anxiety/inability to cope. These kids struggle greatly with normal aspects of adulthood, fear failure, overthink everything, and end up feeling terrible about themselves at the littlest set back or learning experience. Most of this person’s work with these kids focuses getting them to gain confidence in their ability to operate independently and to actually handle failures and setbacks without going into a tailspin. It used to be that this person’s clientele consisted predominantly of middle aged or older people who had rough childhoods, ongoing chronic mental health problems, or who had experienced a severe shock like a divorce, death, illness, etc. Now they spend more and more time just helping younger and younger people function normally regarding day to day adulthood and the transition to adulthood – navigating dating/relationships, job hunting, handling conflicts at work, etc. If anything, these kids suffer from a grave sense of inadequacy and fear of failure, not arrogance. Narcissism when it does manifest, and obsession with oneself, are notoriously linked with deep seeded insecurities.

Please note, I don’t think this is the young generations’ fault, I think like any other public health phenomenon it is the result of many societal and cultural factors.

I think this is a great post, and I wanted to add to it that the world is INCREDIBLY complex now, much more complex than it was in the 70s or 80s, to the point where even highly functional people are starting to feel maxed out in terms of what they can handle.

It is not surprising to me at all that this would lead directly to a bunch of people feeling maxed out and anxious.

[Quidnon?]

The only concern I have for millennials and newer generations isn’t about laziness or entitlement, but actual mental health. We are seeing strikingly high rates of emotional problems or maladjustment in college age young people. In part it could be that we were taught to speak up and seek help, so maybe more millennials are actually open to getting help whereas before people might have been more inclined to hide their problems. But that wouldn’t account for all of it. There does seem to be a legitimate increased level of emotional fragility/lack of psychological resilience in newer generations that is legitimately harming them. There are many studies and surveys out there documenting this phenomenon.

An anecdote: I have a close friend who is a clinical psychologist and they have mentioned repeatedly that they are shocked at the numbers of otherwise healthy/successful/bright young people who are seeking help for depression/anxiety/inability to cope. These kids struggle greatly with normal aspects of adulthood, fear failure, overthink everything, and end up feeling terrible about themselves at the littlest set back or learning experience. Most of this person’s work with these kids focuses getting them to gain confidence in their ability to operate independently and to actually handle failures and setbacks without going into a tailspin. It used to be that this person’s clientele consisted predominantly of middle aged or older people who had rough childhoods, ongoing chronic mental health problems, or who had experienced a severe shock like a divorce, death, illness, etc. Now they spend more and more time just helping younger and younger people function normally regarding day to day adulthood and the transition to adulthood – navigating dating/relationships, job hunting, handling conflicts at work, etc. If anything, these kids suffer from a grave sense of inadequacy and fear of failure, not arrogance. Narcissism when it does manifest, and obsession with oneself, are notoriously linked with deep seeded insecurities.

Please note, I don’t think this is the young generations’ fault, I think like any other public health phenomenon it is the result of many societal and cultural factors.

I think this is a great post, and I wanted to add to it that the world is INCREDIBLY complex now, much more complex than it was in the 70s or 80s, to the point where even highly functional people are starting to feel maxed out in terms of what they can handle.

It is not surprising to me at all that this would lead directly to a bunch of people feeling maxed out and anxious.

You just reminded me of something. Dmitri Orlov is a Russian born engineer, but is kinda famous for predicting the economic collapse & breakup of the United States, based partly on his observations of the breakup of the Soviet Union.  A lot of his argument is the increasing complexity of the labor economy, not so much politics. He made teh argumetn years ago that once society becomes so complex that the average adult mind can't handle the stressors, working age adults will start to 'turn inward', and the complexity of the economy will fail upon some exterior trigger.

[BlueHouse]

I'm a millennial and the thing I laugh about the most is when we are considered the "participation trophy" generation or when someone makes the comment about our generation saying "that's what happens when you give everyone a prize".  We did not make those rules! I am sure some complained about not getting a prize or winning, but then, IMO, it's on the parents to use that as a teaching moment rather than changing things so everyone is a "winner".

yep, no doubt about it.  Gen-Xers ruined their kids. 

Disclaimer - I was never involved in activities where everyone got the same prize for participating regardless of the results. Where I grew up you were rewarded on your performance whether it be academics, sports, music contests, 4-H.

Here's my disclaimer:  I have a drawer at work where I keep First Place and "participant" ribbons.  Every once in a while I give a First place ribbon out to someone who did something really cool that makes my life easier (I'm not their boss).  Sometimes I give "Participant" Ribbons out to someone who really fucked something up.  They know that's about the worst thing that can happen, but they hang it up and wear it like the badge of shame it is.  (all meant in jest and only done in a joking manner).