The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: Le Dérisoire on May 31, 2013, 12:27:44 PM
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/real-reason-millennials-don-t-buy-cars-homes-153340750.html;_ylt=AmsogZ4Knx.wfRveUcUOxAKiuYdG;_ylu=X3oDMTN1ajlwYjdpBG1pdANGaW5hbmNlIEZQIE1lZ2F0cm9uIDIEcGtnAzE1Zjc5ZGMzLWQ3NGItM2FkNy04NDFjLTg3OWFlZjQyNzQ2ZQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDbWVnYXRyb24EdmVyAzgyY2Y0NjIyLWNhMDctMTFlMi05YmZmLWE3NDY0MzQxZTViNA--;_ylg=X3oDMTFkcW51ZGliBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3BtaA--;_ylv=3 (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/real-reason-millennials-don-t-buy-cars-homes-153340750.html;_ylt=AmsogZ4Knx.wfRveUcUOxAKiuYdG;_ylu=X3oDMTN1ajlwYjdpBG1pdANGaW5hbmNlIEZQIE1lZ2F0cm9uIDIEcGtnAzE1Zjc5ZGMzLWQ3NGItM2FkNy04NDFjLTg3OWFlZjQyNzQ2ZQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDbWVnYXRyb24EdmVyAzgyY2Y0NjIyLWNhMDctMTFlMi05YmZmLWE3NDY0MzQxZTViNA--;_ylg=X3oDMTFkcW51ZGliBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3BtaA--;_ylv=3)
Sorry for the long link.
According to this article on yahoo finance, my generation is a serious threat to the economy because we don't buy enough cars and houses. The reason behind that fact is that we are narcissistic and pampered. For real. I don't think the author is sarcastic.
We deny ourselves the freedom of having a car. You know... that's what freedom is all about. Having a car.
But there is hope. Sociologists say that it's only a matter of time before we turn into materialistic spenders.
The Real Reason Millennials Don’t Buy Cars and Homes
They’re narcissistic. Apathetic. Pampered. And addicted to their four-inch screens.
If you believe the conventional wisdom about the millennial generation — those 16 to 34 years of age, by most calculations — you’ve got considerable reason to worry about the future of the U.S. economy. Millennials show far less interest in buying cars, homes and other big-ticket items than their parents did at the same age, which has generated an intense effort among companies that produce those things to crack the code of these crazy kids and figure out how to sell them stuff.
[...]
One of the biggest mysteries of millennials is why they seem to have little interest in cars, which have been an irresistible source of freedom and mobility for young people since the interstate highway system opened the whole country to Chevys and Mercurys in the 1950s.
[...]
Once millennials find their financial footing, however, they might just turn into materialistic spenders who love cars and other costly things — just like their parents.
-
Whatever...
I am a millennial. If they want me to buy a house, then don't make them so damn expensive. Houses have jumped 20% in price in my area, and investors are the blame (plus short supply)! I have enough for a downpayment, but when a house has 20 offers and half are in cash, I am left in the dust.
-
think this may be a big part of it:
Many young people have done what they’ve been told to do and gone to college, since education remains an important pathway to success. But many are graduating with heavy student-debt burdens and finding they can’t get jobs that pay enough to make the hefty payments on those loans
i have 3 millennial kids - 2 bought used cars, 1 lives in a big city & doesn't own a car.
for the 2 that bought used - 1 was concentrating on paying off student loans, 1 back in school for a 2nd degree.
b
-
Scooters are where its at, they are way more hip!
In all seriousness, our parent's generation doesn't want to hire us and we are massively in debt (take my generalities with a grain of salt, please) its no wonder we don't want expensive, depreciating assets like cars. I plan on driving my car into the dirt and then I'll buy another inexpensive car to do the same.
Houses are a bit different for me though, mostly because I live in an area that was hard hit in 2007 and prices have barely increased since then. Not to mention that many houses around here can be purchased for about as much as a new car.
-
Could be right about the 4-inch screen thing, but it's not down to narcissism. Instead, it's because they've spent most of their lives living second-hand, through TV, movies, video games. So many of them approach the gamer stereotype, never coming outside except for work (if they can't get mom & dad to support them), and if they never interact with the real world (and the even realer world outside the 'urbs), why do they need cars? Or bikes, running shoes, &c.
But there's probably a growing market for plug-in feeding & waste tubes.
-
Could be right about the 4-inch screen thing, but it's not down to narcissism. Instead, it's because they've spent most of their lives living second-hand, through TV, movies, video games. So many of them approach the gamer stereotype, never coming outside except for work (if they can't get mom & dad to support them), and if they never interact with the real world (and the even realer world outside the 'urbs), why do they need cars? Or bikes, running shoes, &c.
But there's probably a growing market for plug-in feeding & waste tubes.
I think the baby boomer generation proved there's no tension between narcissism and consumerism, so I wasn't sure why that particular insult was used to introduce the article. Anyway, your post reminded me of a publication I saw from California State Parks that may make your head explode: http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/795/files/millennials%20final_03_08_10.pdf
-
Could be right about the 4-inch screen thing, but it's not down to narcissism. Instead, it's because they've spent most of their lives living second-hand, through TV, movies, video games. So many of them approach the gamer stereotype, never coming outside except for work (if they can't get mom & dad to support them), and if they never interact with the real world (and the even realer world outside the 'urbs), why do they need cars? Or bikes, running shoes, &c.
But there's probably a growing market for plug-in feeding & waste tubes.
Makes me feel like you've never met anyone within 5 years of my age in person. Insults painted with broad brushstrokes are not the foundation of productive conversations.
-
I think it's an interesting question. I'd speculate that millenials find freedom in information and communication vs. crusing the highways. In flexibility (zip car) vs. obligation (6 year car loan). In short, Freedom with a capital F.
-
I like that the article implies that we seem to have blown our house down payments on cell phones... How much does the author think cell phones cost?
I won't bother to go into how I don't fit the stereotype... I'm on the MMM forum. Nuf said
-
I'm a millennial and don't intend to ever buy a car or house - I'm incapable of obtaining a drivers license, and the places I enjoy living have sky-high home prices(yet low rent apartments, conveniently).
-
^thats understandable in Vancouver [IIRC, the bubbliest of the bubbles in Canadian housing]
also the millennials are also the first of the "we dont keep score" generation in T-ball [it's their parents fault, though, really]. I get it though, I'm too old. Heh. My little bro is a millenial, though, we seem to be more alike than different. Each generation is a bit different than the last. Don't forget the ones before you were the REAL PROBLEM, aka the gen X slackers. Well, here I am. slacking slacking slacking :)
-
Could be right about the 4-inch screen thing, but it's not down to narcissism. Instead, it's because they've spent most of their lives living second-hand, through TV, movies, video games. So many of them approach the gamer stereotype, never coming outside except for work (if they can't get mom & dad to support them), and if they never interact with the real world (and the even realer world outside the 'urbs), why do they need cars? Or bikes, running shoes, &c.
But there's probably a growing market for plug-in feeding & waste tubes.
My apathy just doesn't give a crap. And all the incredible amount of pampering I've received through my feeding tube has sedated me to the point of... well... more apathy. I'll just have my mom & dad type out a snarky response to you.
Sarcasm aside you really think the reason millennials don't buy cars is because of phones, TV, movies, and video games?
Haven't we had enough demonizing of a new generations media/cultural preferences? Haven't TV and movies been blamed for the corruption of youth for a few generations now? And are those fears finally coming to fruition? Will I be grumping about those darn kids and the brain jacks thirty years from now? Yes, yes, probably not, and I hope so brain jacks would be cool (much cooler than feeding tubes).
-
Man this is a stupid article. It's founded on the never-questioned American assumption that more consumption is inherently good, and our self-worth as a nation should be tied to it.
It’s as if America’s youth are rejecting social conventions that generations have held in common for decades.
Gosh, no generation has ever rejected long-held social conventions before!!! Someone call Ripley!!!
Maybe living with their parents and saving money is just what millennials need to do to become the powerhouse purchasers of the future.
Except that's not how it works, generally speaking. Heavy consumers don't start out as savers and then suddenly start pissing their savings away. Instead they start out barely making it and fall prey to lifestyle inflation as their incomes rise.
One of the biggest mysteries of millennials is why they seem to have little interest in cars, which have been an irresistible source of freedom and mobility for young people since the interstate highway system opened the whole country to Chevys and Mercurys in the 1950s. Yet millennials seem to scoff at the open road.
I've got nothing against "the open road", but to me foregoing the financial ball and chain of vehicle ownership allows me a much greater and more satisfying freedom than the ability to travel large distances on a whim. My idea of "freedom and mobility"? Being able to wake up every day and decide what the hell *I* want to do, without having to answer to anyone. That to me is orders of magnitude more valuable than any product money could buy.
Of course, financial independence is not the motivation for most millennials. But most of my friends don't fit the description in the article. Now that the whole "driving is terrible for the earth" thing is out of the bag, could it be that the rosy image of driving as a quintessential component of American freedom is starting to look laughably dated? And that after watching housing prices lurch all over the place, people my age are hesitant about jumping into the housing market?
Nah, must be those damn four-inch screens.
-
I like that the article implies that we seem to have blown our house down payments on cell phones... How much does the author think cell phones cost?
I won't bother to go into how I don't fit the stereotype... I'm on the MMM forum. Nuf said
The normal cost is probably 100*60+500 ($200 every 2 years for a new phone and $100/month for service) That comes out to $13,000 ignoring investment income on those numbers. At 5%, that's a down payment on a $260,000 house. We have to remember how 'normal' people operate sometimes.
-
Whatever...
I am a millennial. If they want me to buy a house, then don't make them so damn expensive. Houses have jumped 20% in price in my area, and investors are the blame (plus short supply)! I have enough for a downpayment, but when a house has 20 offers and half are in cash, I am left in the dust.
Yep, it's crazy. A decent house in my area starts at $150,000 (most go much higher) even though the average income is in the $40Ks. People are still spending up to, and past, 28% of their income on housing.
If they think I ought to do that, then they're going to be complaining for a long time. I have enough for a substantial cash down-payment, but it's just not worth it.
-
"Hey old people: Fuck you."
- The Millennials.
-
Sorry for the long link.
Just http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/real-reason-millennials-don-t-buy-cars-homes-153340750.htm (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/real-reason-millennials-don-t-buy-cars-homes-153340750.htm) would do :) The rest is unnecessary.
-
Makes me feel like you've never met anyone within 5 years of my age in person. Insults painted with broad brushstrokes are not the foundation of productive conversations.
Where are the insults? I don't see any in plain statements of fact.
As for the broad brushstrokes, it's inherent in the nature of statistics. The article is not claiming that NO "millenials" are buying cars &c, just that significantly fewer are. Likewise, some fraction of people that age are doing the gamer/media thing to the exclusion of outside life - and yes, I do know some people like that. That's not saying they all are, 'cause I also know some who get outside at every opportunity. But it seems as though there easily could be enough of the first sort to explain the changed numbers.
-
I'd like to think people are seeing their parents having to work past 65 after spending their whole lives and thinking things through properly....
but it probably has more to do with student debt.
-
There's just something in the human condition that makes people think younger generations are entitled, lazy, etc.
Dont' worry Millennials, it's happened to those that came before you, and in 20 or 30 years you might be doing it too.
Along with complaining about the music. That's mandatory.
-
The normal cost is probably 100*60+500 ($200 every 2 years for a new phone and $100/month for service) That comes out to $13,000 ignoring investment income on those numbers. At 5%, that's a down payment on a $260,000 house. We have to remember how 'normal' people operate sometimes.
How could my generation be so foolish as to not have the foresight to save money for an entire decade to purchase a home like prior generations!
I agree that my generation spends too much money on stupid stuff. But I disagree that my generation spends so much more on stupid stuff than prior generations that we can't afford homes.
-
Yep, it's crazy. A decent house in my area starts at $150,000 (most go much higher) even though the average income is in the $40Ks.
Consider yourself lucky. My income is less than $50k and the not-fancy, but admittedly nicely located two-bedroom apartment I'm in would cost $500k+ to buy. Luckily, I'm only renting. :)
-
The normal cost is probably 100*60+500 ($200 every 2 years for a new phone and $100/month for service) That comes out to $13,000 ignoring investment income on those numbers. At 5%, that's a down payment on a $260,000 house. We have to remember how 'normal' people operate sometimes.
How could my generation be so foolish as to not have the foresight to save money for an entire decade to purchase a home like prior generations!
I agree that my generation spends too much money on stupid stuff. But I disagree that my generation spends so much more on stupid stuff than prior generations that we can't afford homes.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think that's actually happening, but you could pay a down-payment with a typical cell phone bill over 5 years. I was just responding to the original post that if you got rid of a typical cell phone bill for 5 years it would becomes a down payment under the loose down payment rules.
-
Yep, it's crazy. A decent house in my area starts at $150,000 (most go much higher) even though the average income is in the $40Ks.
Consider yourself lucky. My income is less than $50k and the not-fancy, but admittedly nicely located two-bedroom apartment I'm in would cost $500k+ to buy. Luckily, I'm only renting. :)
That's exactly my point. Most people in your situation are probably trying to buy the $500K houses - and that is actually driving the prices up higher which then make people more willing to pay more - what a cycle. Yet it doesn't even make sense for me to buy a $150K house - a third of that cost.
-
Further, gasoline was CHEAP! You could heat a house and drive a car for next to nothing.
Sorry, but you're not doing the math properly. You're looking at the cost of gasoline in dollars, and thinking a 1973 dollar is the same as a 2013 dollar. If instead you figure the miles you can drive for an hour of minimum-wage work, it actually can be cheaper today, as long as you buy a fuel-efficient used car instead of an oversized guzzler.
Same with home heating. Yes, a gallon of fuel was cheaper, but houses back then had minimal insulation, single-pane windows (often with aluminum frames, and other energy wasters, which meant that you burned through 5 or 10 times as many gallons to keep your house at the same temperature.
Today, when you buy a car (new or used) you get murdered on licencing, insurance, maintenance and fuel.
Nope. You CAN, if you make the wrong choices, but I manage to spend very little on cars. Drive a 2000 Insight, 70+ mpg, $70/year registration, about $300 insurance, next to nothing on maintenance & repairs... I'd bet I pay less per month for the car than the typical millenial pays for that smart phone. (I pay $7/month for the phone - again, it's about choices.)
-
about $300 insurance
$300 a year, I presume? I won't take apart all of your points, James - only this one. How old are you? I'll assume you're in your 40s. In case you don't know, insurance companies charge young people a lot of money for the same insurance coverage you get for $300. I'm 26, I've been in 2 accidents (got rear-ended, I wasn't at fault) and I pay $1,300 a year in insurance. That's $1,000 more than you do. Please, James, tell me again about how my generation has it so easy and chooses to be lazy.
-
$300 a year, I presume? I won't take apart all of your points, James - only this one. How old are you? I'll assume you're in your 40s. In case you don't know, insurance companies charge young people a lot of money for the same insurance coverage you get for $300. I'm 26, I've been in 2 accidents (got rear-ended, I wasn't at fault) and I pay $1,300 a year in insurance. That's $1,000 more than you do. Please, James, tell me again about how my generation has it so easy and chooses to be lazy.
I'm actually curious what you are driving and what your payments were before the accidents. I'm 23 and I only pay about $450 in insurance over a year. It's higher than Jame's, but much, much lower than yours. But it's also a 1999 car.
-
Yes, if you buy an older used car for cash, and carry only liability insurance instead of collision & comprehensive, your insurance costs are going to be much lower than if you buy new (or newer used) and have to finance & carry C&C. Yes, you are going to get hit with higher premiums because you're young, but not that much higher. I got hit with the same when I was younger, too.
-
I'm actually curious what you are driving and what your payments were before the accidents. I'm 23 and I only pay about $450 in insurance over a year. It's higher than Jame's, but much, much lower than yours. But it's also a 1999 car.
It's a 2013 Kia Rio. (More details below.)
Yes, if you buy an older used car for cash, and carry only liability insurance instead of collision & comprehensive, your insurance costs are going to be much lower than if you buy new (or newer used) and have to finance & carry C&C.
Well, that's what the OP's article was about, wasn't it? My first 3 cars were used: a 2001 Nissan Altima, which fell apart within 3 months of my buying it, so the dealer replaced it with a lemon-ish 1998 Buick Skylark. It was a great little car after I got it fixed up, but it got rear-ended by an idiot who was too busy to pay attention to stop signs, apparently. Since it was an old used car, the guy's insurance gave me a paltry $1,600 check (I could have sued the guy for a "mysterious pain the neck" but I'm not that much of a weasel), which I used to buy a 1988 Honda CRX. Fun little car, too, but something would break every 2-3 months. :( A drunk idiot hit it in a parking lot.
I had gotten tired of old and cheap cars that took a fortune to maintain - especially after I added up all the repair bills and realized that I would have saved money (and time, and frayed nerves) if I'd bought a brand new car to begin with. Alas, it looks like the car (2013 Kia Rio) was assembled by chipmunks (this is not a racial slur against South Koreans, btw) - they hadn't secured the coolant hose to the engine well enough, which caused my car to break down in the middle of a highway 6 weeks after I bought it. The engine overheated, too - so they took a week to replace it... (First time in my life I got a free car repair! Yaaay...)
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm really, really unlucky when it comes to cars, and that young people are screwed either way: old cars require a lot maintenance, which very few of us Millennials know how to do, and new cars cost a lot in insurance and can break down as well, though you can get them fixed for free if they're still under warranty. :^/ I plan on keeping my lemon-flavored Kia for the whole 10 years (manufacturer's warranty) and after that... Hell, I don't even know. A motorcycle? A jetpack? A horse? Kind of turned off by the whole car ownership thing now. :(
-
Ah, it is another one of those "young people are dumb" articles.
The idea that people do not buy cars because they are looking at four-inch screens is preposterous. The screens are at least six inches.
Seriously, though, I think city communities are moving toward sharing items. We have car sharing and bike sharing and companies that make that happen. Money is being spent, but it may not be spent in the same ways--and maybe not as *much* money is being spent.
DH and I think it's really strange our street has 16 houses with 16 lawn mowers. Why not one lawn mower?
-
Insurance varies hugely depending on where you live so is not comparable - at all.
I live in Ontario. Currently insuring two cars (so discount), plus house (another discount), and it still comes out to $1800 for the two cars.
If we moved to Quebec, it'd go down to 1/4 that. But tax would be 3-5% higher, and the brackets lower.
However, it is true that petrol is *not* expensive. $60 will get me 500km. In a very large lump of metal. That is batshit crazy.
Our heating bill in Canada (-30 degrees C folks, sometimes) - for the worst month was $180 I think. It averages out to about $60 per month year round.
Just remember, it used to be that 1/3 or more of peoples' pay would go to buying food. We have it easy, we really do (except society finds things for us to spend our money on when we really shouldn't).
And.. the difference between brand new and known-shitty or really old is quite high. Like... instead of brand new, how about 1/3 the price, but in cash. And don't buy Altimas. Or Skylarks. Check out carcomplaints and find a year and model that does NOT have a horrid spike, or has a spike for the auto when you're buying manual, or the 2.5 when you're buying the 2.0, etc, etc.
Cars aren't magic. Things wear. Some are badly designed. And sometimes you get unlucky. But if you're having something fixed every 3 months... and it costs $200 each time... well, that's $800 a year. New car is $12k, or $15k, or $20k. If you paid 1/3 the new price - say $5k for something decent - and are spending $800 a year on repairs... well, that's still 12 years of repairs you haven't spent *yet*.
Plus, new cars break too! My SIL has had two new suspensions on her Mazda 5, apparently. It's 4 years old with 120k km on.
/shrug
-
Could be right about the 4-inch screen thing, but it's not down to narcissism. Instead, it's because they've spent most of their lives living second-hand, through TV, movies, video games. So many of them approach the gamer stereotype, never coming outside except for work (if they can't get mom & dad to support them), and if they never interact with the real world (and the even realer world outside the 'urbs), why do they need cars? Or bikes, running shoes, &c.
But there's probably a growing market for plug-in feeding & waste tubes.
Makes me feel like you've never met anyone within 5 years of my age in person. Insults painted with broad brushstrokes are not the foundation of productive conversations.
Maybe that age group noticed their parents spent 1-2 hours each way in traffic to get to jobs, and the young folks did not like what they saw.
The article referenced above confirms that Yahoo is stupid.
-
One of the biggest mysteries of millennials is why they seem to have little interest in cars, which have been an irresistible source of freedom and mobility for young people since the interstate highway system opened the whole country to Chevys and Mercurys in the 1950s.
This is only a mystery to old people. Maybe in 1950 a car meant you could drive around in freedom. My automotive experience has been more like it takes an hour to go 10 miles because of traffic and I am forced to get into the car to run every boring errand because no major stores are designed to be walked to.
My dad tells a story about how he once road tripped to California to catch up with some friends and it was such a great adventure. Freedom? Please. Why bother driving when Skype or Google fills this need all the time, any time.
-
My dad tells a story about how he once road tripped to California to catch up with some friends and it was such a great adventure. Freedom? Please. Why bother driving when Skype or Google fills this need all the time, any time.
Back in those days a letter would do as well for communication as Skype, if slower. There were plenty of picture books that did the job Google does now. But none of those will put you on the beach when the surf's up, or let you hike in the Sierra or the redwoods, or (as I did this pm) ride a horse out in the Empty Quarter. They leave you stuck in your bedroom staring at those 4-inch screens :-)
-
Some of you are misreading (or just not reading) this article. The "real reason" millennials don't buy cars, according to the writer, is not because they're narcissistic, apathetic, and pampered, which is "conventional wisdom" (conventional wisdom being that any generation coming of age = jerks); the real reason is that "[t]hey don't have much money"... which isn't very controversial.
-
I'm actually curious what you are driving and what your payments were before the accidents. I'm 23 and I only pay about $450 in insurance over a year. It's higher than Jame's, but much, much lower than yours. But it's also a 1999 car.
Accidents and tickets can kill you. I got a speeding ticket in 2010 and was in an accident (my fault and a fair amount of damage) in 2008, and an accident (his fault and very minor damage) in 2010. This actually creates a really great one point study. I can compare prices across multiple insurance companies. Geico looks at all incidents in the past 5 years. State farm looks at tickets for the last 3 years, accidents not at fault for 3 years, and accidents at fault for 5 years (perfect for me since they'll all going off the record when I renew this month).
Anyway, shouldn't be any longer than I need to be. Geico costs me currently $804/year. It will cost me $720/year at renewal. State Farm will cost ~$480/year this month. The point - accidents and incidents can make a HUGE difference.
For comparison, I drive a 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid (totaled by hail so worth about $4K - also has 150,000 miles on it) without comprehensive and fairly minimal liability coverage.
-
Some of you are misreading (or just not reading) this article. The "real reason" millennials don't buy cars, according to the writer, is not because they're narcissistic, apathetic, and pampered, which is "conventional wisdom" (conventional wisdom being that any generation coming of age = jerks); the real reason is that "[t]hey don't have much money"... which isn't very controversial.
+1 The author supports his stance with a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of NY.
-
Young people may not consider housing a sure-fire investment like previous generations did either. Why would I buy a house if it might magically lose part of its value and be difficult to sell? Most of us didn't own homes during the bubble, but we still saw what happened to our parents.
*I know it wasn't magic, but it might as well have been through my teenaged eyes.
-
Accidents and tickets can kill you.
No joke there. Women usually get better rates than men, yet my insurance for TWO cars was a few dollars cheaper than my wife's insurance for ONE car! I have a completely clean record, at that time she had been in multiple collisions and had multiple speeding tickets.
Odd side note: Since going into pilot training (eventually getting her Pilot's license) she hasn't had a single ticket or collision... Apparently becoming a pilot makes one a much better driver?
-
...the real reason is that "[t]hey don't have much money"...
I expect few of us did, at that age. I sure didn't.
FWIW, the newest car I've ever owned is the 2000 Insight. It's also the only one I've owned that's a 1990 or later model.
-
...the real reason is that "[t]hey don't have much money"...
I expect few of us did, at that age. I sure didn't.
FWIW, the newest car I've ever owned is the 2000 Insight. It's also the only one I've owned that's a 1990 or later model.
Yes, but "BREAKING NEWS: YOUNGER PEOPLE HAVE LESS MONEY THAN OLDER PEOPLE" isn't as effective as click-bait.
Seriously, though, I think there are many reasons Millennials aren't buying as many cars their parents (or as many cars as car marketers would like). The economy is one; the unemployment rate for Millennials is much higher than for older workers. There's a pretty strong preference for many Millennials to live in walkable urban centers. As oldtoyota mentioned, there's also the rise of the sharing economy, in which Millennials are much more likely to participate. And, yes, for many Millennials, technology/social platforms have become the default or even preferred method of keeping connected with peers, versus face-to-face time.
Anyhoo, what I'm saying is: This article was very silly, but it doesn't call young people narcissistic, apathetic, etc.
-
The only important line of that article was how Millennials are delaying typical adult behavior, which I agree with. Part of that is economics and circumstance not of their making. And a lot of it is their choice.
Given the choice between living with parents in a nice home with cable television, free meals, a washing machine, access to vehicles, and a ridiculously low rent (if any) OR living in a skanky apartment shared with 5 of your peers, taking the bus, and having no amenities... Well, it's easy to pick living with mommy.
It wasn't acceptable for my generation to do this. (Gen-X). We would have been laughed at by our peers and parents alike.
The problem with delayed adulthood is that many will never achieve it, unwilling to go through the discomfort of early adulthood when sacrifice and hard work are required. They will not marry, have children, etc.
But at least they aren't as self-centered as the Boomers.
-
The only important line of that article was how Millennials are delaying typical adult behavior, which I agree with. Part of that is economics and circumstance not of their making. And a lot of it is their choice.
Given the choice between living with parents in a nice home with cable television, free meals, a washing machine, access to vehicles, and a ridiculously low rent (if any) OR living in a skanky apartment shared with 5 of your peers, taking the bus, and having no amenities... Well, it's easy to pick living with mommy.
It wasn't acceptable for my generation to do this. (Gen-X). We would have been laughed at by our peers and parents alike.
The problem with delayed adulthood is that many will never achieve it, unwilling to go through the discomfort of early adulthood when sacrifice and hard work are required. They will not marry, have children, etc.
Interesting TED Talk I saw the other day relates highly to this. http://www.ted.com/talks/meg_jay_why_30_is_not_the_new_20.html
-
A slightly less inflammatory explanation:
http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2013/04/young-student-loan-borrowers-retreat-from-housing-and-auto-markets.html
TL;DR : skyrocketing student loan debt + poor job market + tightening bank credit = many millennialis couldn't qualify for a home loan even if they wanted one
-
One of the biggest mysteries of millennials is why they seem to have little interest in cars, which have been an irresistible source of freedom and mobility for young people since the interstate highway system opened the whole country to Chevys and Mercurys in the 1950s.
This is only a mystery to old people. Maybe in 1950 a car meant you could drive around in freedom. My automotive experience has been more like it takes an hour to go 10 miles because of traffic and I am forced to get into the car to run every boring errand because no major stores are designed to be walked to.
My dad tells a story about how he once road tripped to California to catch up with some friends and it was such a great adventure. Freedom? Please. Why bother driving when Skype or Google fills this need all the time, any time.
Haha. So funny. The "freedom" of cars was helped along when the Ford Motor Co bought up all the street cars and shut them down, thus forcing people to buy Ford cars!
The link below says Americans "preferred" to drive alone in their cars. Whatever the actual truth is, we all know owning cars is exchanging one form of freedom for another form of non-freedom. =-)
http://amhistory.si.edu/onthemove/exhibition/exhibition_4_6.html
-
A slightly less inflammatory explanation:
http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2013/04/young-student-loan-borrowers-retreat-from-housing-and-auto-markets.html
TL;DR : skyrocketing student loan debt + poor job market + tightening bank credit = many millennialis couldn't qualify for a home loan even if they wanted one
THIS. As a gainfully employed millennial (software engineer on MMM forum? No way!) who comes from a pretty blue collar area, the reason my friends drive decade + cars, live four to an apartment, and buy basically nothing, is because the job they have at the auto parts factory pays $9 an hour. When Mr. Boomer got that same job, he was making the equivalent of 60k a year, had awesome benefits and PTO. The economy is really bad for young people whether they're educated or not. I recently read an article showing that from the 80s to today, the net worth of people in their 20s and 30s went down by something like 30%. That's not because we "spent it all on phones." It's because that money now flows to other (richer) people.
FWIW, I'm doing great and am saving up for a house, investing tons of money. But it's because I have money to begin with.
-
Haha. So funny. The "freedom" of cars was helped along when the Ford Motor Co bought up all the street cars and shut them down, thus forcing people to buy Ford cars!
Without arguing as to the truth of the Ford story, I think you are greatly missing the point. Sure, if you're so unfortunate as to have to live in an urban area, streetcars (or other mass transit) will get you to work and back just fine. But isn't there more to life than that? (Indeed, isn't that why so many of you want early retirement?) Mass transit just can't take you to most of the interesting places, including that secluded back lane with your g/b-friend.
...because the job they have at the auto parts factory pays $9 an hour. When Mr. Boomer got that same job, he was making the equivalent of 60k a year, had awesome benefits and PTO. The economy is really bad for young people whether they're educated or not.
Guess this one's for the "every generation thinks it's getting screwed" file. The economy now isn't notably worse than it was during the Nixon/Ford/Carter administrations, when a lot of boomers were young. Sure, back in those days some young people (usually those with fathers or uncles in the union) got those high-paying blue-collar jobs at the auto parts factory. Others of us (me, for one) worked in the fields for not much money at all. Nowadays some young people get well-paid jobs doing software engineering & such. (I know one who's currently making the equivalent of about $70K/yr as a summer intern at Google.) Others don't.
-
Haha. So funny. The "freedom" of cars was helped along when the Ford Motor Co bought up all the street cars and shut them down, thus forcing people to buy Ford cars!
First, that was GM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy). Second, that's a dubious explanation that only halfway fits the facts.
-
Sure, if you're so unfortunate as to have to live in an urban area, streetcars (or other mass transit) will get you to work and back just fine.
I think this one line encapsulates the generation gap almost in its entirety. Young people are flocking to cities with mass transit and find there is a lot more to do in an urban area than "go to work and back." And they offer a lot of freedoms to a young person that a car does not, notably freedom from a car payment, and freedom to go to the bar and not have to drive 20 miles across the country/suburb to get home. Plus the ability to associate with people who aren't white is nice!
-
I think this one line encapsulates the generation gap almost in its entirety. Young people are flocking to cities with mass transit and find there is a lot more to do in an urban area than "go to work and back." And they offer a lot of freedoms to a young person that a car does not, notably freedom from a car payment, and freedom to go to the bar and not have to drive 20 miles across the country/suburb to get home. Plus the ability to associate with people who aren't white is nice!
White people are the master race and the only ones worth associating with.
Disclaimer - This is a joke pointed towards suburbanites
-
Plus the ability to associate with people who aren't white is nice!
You know, that may be the most unthinkingly racist statement I've seen since the days of George Wallace and Malcolm X. First, it assumes that non-white people don't live in rural areas - utterly false, as reference to census data will show. Second, there's the blanket assumption that non-white people are fundamentally different in anything but melanin content.
-
Plus the ability to associate with people who aren't white is nice!
You know, that may be the most unthinkingly racist statement I've seen since the days of George Wallace and Malcolm X. First, it assumes that non-white people don't live in rural areas - utterly false, as reference to census data will show. Second, there's the blanket assumption that non-white people are fundamentally different in anything but melanin content.
Thank you! I was almost rendered speechless by the comment and wanted to give the writer the benefit of the doubt but it irked me too. :/
-
Plus the ability to associate with people who aren't white is nice!
You know, that may be the most unthinkingly racist statement I've seen since the days of George Wallace and Malcolm X. First, it assumes that non-white people don't live in rural areas - utterly false, as reference to census data will show. Second, there's the blanket assumption that non-white people are fundamentally different in anything but melanin content.
According to Census 2000, rural areas are 81.9% white, compared to 69.1% in the nation as a whole, meaning urban areas must be considerably less than 69.1%. Additionally, 9 of 10 rural African Americans live in the South so the rural composition of places like Michigan, where I grew up, is more like 88.4% white . I didn't say there are "NO" non-white people in suburbs/rural parts of the country, but there are way fewer. And in my experience there is a huuuuuuuuge difference between having an Asian Indian family in town and having an Asian Indian neighborhood packed with restaurants, grocers, civic organizations, clothing stores, book sellers, bars and clubs.
Census 2010 data doesn't appear to be totally available for this type of thing yet, or else I can't find it in my three minute googlethon.
Finally, there are a huge number of people who would be extremely offended to hear you reduce their cultural and ethnic heritage to nothing by saying there is no difference between them and white Americans. Embedded in your assumption is that everyone is just like you; they are not, and there is a lot to learn from experiencing their culture, which cannot be readily done in a place that is 88% white. "I don't see race" and "everyone is the same" are the last bastions of white racism.
http://216.92.48.246/pubs/RacePlaceandHousing/RacePlace&Housing_Race&Ethnicity.pdf (http://216.92.48.246/pubs/RacePlaceandHousing/RacePlace&Housing_Race&Ethnicity.pdf)
-
Sure, if you're so unfortunate as to have to live in an urban area, streetcars (or other mass transit) will get you to work and back just fine.
What is so unfortunate about urban areas, if you don't mind expanding?
FYI, you can't just pretend white flight isn't A Thing just because you think it sounds racist to point it out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight It also probably is worth pointing out that many urban areas in the US are de facto segregated as well, but baby steps I suppose.
-
Plus the ability to associate with people who aren't white is nice!
You know, that may be the most unthinkingly racist statement I've seen since the days of George Wallace and Malcolm X. First, it assumes that non-white people don't live in rural areas - utterly false, as reference to census data will show. Second, there's the blanket assumption that non-white people are fundamentally different in anything but melanin content.
According to Census 2000, rural areas are 81.9% white, compared to 69.1% in the nation as a whole, meaning urban areas must be considerably less than 69.1%. Additionally, 9 of 10 rural African Americans live in the South so the rural composition of places like Michigan, where I grew up, is more like 88.4% white . I didn't say there are "NO" non-white people in suburbs/rural parts of the country, but there are way fewer. And in my experience there is a huuuuuuuuge difference between having an Asian Indian family in town and having an Asian Indian neighborhood packed with restaurants, grocers, civic organizations, clothing stores, book sellers, bars and clubs.
Census 2010 data doesn't appear to be totally available for this type of thing yet, or else I can't find it in my three minute googlethon.
Finally, there are a huge number of people who would be extremely offended to hear you reduce their cultural and ethnic heritage to nothing by saying there is no difference between them and white Americans. Embedded in your assumption is that everyone is just like you; they are not, and there is a lot to learn from experiencing their culture, which cannot be readily done in a place that is 88% white. "I don't see race" and "everyone is the same" are the last bastions of white racism.
http://216.92.48.246/pubs/RacePlaceandHousing/RacePlace&Housing_Race&Ethnicity.pdf (http://216.92.48.246/pubs/RacePlaceandHousing/RacePlace&Housing_Race&Ethnicity.pdf)
Hey, you are the racist poster that brought up the topic in the first place. Is there some reason you felt the need to do so?
-
For Census 2010 I did find this map, which, while it isn't a report, does let you click around by county to see places like rural Michigan, where it's pretty common to have 25,000 white people in a county and 250 non-white.
http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ (http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/)
-
Plus the ability to associate with people who aren't white is nice!
You know, that may be the most unthinkingly racist statement I've seen since the days of George Wallace and Malcolm X. First, it assumes that non-white people don't live in rural areas - utterly false, as reference to census data will show. Second, there's the blanket assumption that non-white people are fundamentally different in anything but melanin content.
According to Census 2000, rural areas are 81.9% white, compared to 69.1% in the nation as a whole, meaning urban areas must be considerably less than 69.1%. Additionally, 9 of 10 rural African Americans live in the South so the rural composition of places like Michigan, where I grew up, is more like 88.4% white . I didn't say there are "NO" non-white people in suburbs/rural parts of the country, but there are way fewer. And in my experience there is a huuuuuuuuge difference between having an Asian Indian family in town and having an Asian Indian neighborhood packed with restaurants, grocers, civic organizations, clothing stores, book sellers, bars and clubs.
Census 2010 data doesn't appear to be totally available for this type of thing yet, or else I can't find it in my three minute googlethon.
Finally, there are a huge number of people who would be extremely offended to hear you reduce their cultural and ethnic heritage to nothing by saying there is no difference between them and white Americans. Embedded in your assumption is that everyone is just like you; they are not, and there is a lot to learn from experiencing their culture, which cannot be readily done in a place that is 88% white. "I don't see race" and "everyone is the same" are the last bastions of white racism.
http://216.92.48.246/pubs/RacePlaceandHousing/RacePlace&Housing_Race&Ethnicity.pdf (http://216.92.48.246/pubs/RacePlaceandHousing/RacePlace&Housing_Race&Ethnicity.pdf)
Hey, you are the racist poster that brought up the topic in the first place. Is there some reason you felt the need to do so?
Yes. Cultural diversity is an advantage of living in the city, and it doesn't exist to a significant degree outside of it. Plus, at least around Detroit, bashing "urban areas" is code for bashing African Americans.
I think this is the first time in my life I've been accused of being a racist because I want to live near people of other races and ethnicities... bwa ha ha!
-
I think this is the first time in my life I've been accused of being a racist because I want to live near people of other races and ethnicities... bwa ha ha!
Urban areas aren't a sure-fire solution for diversity either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Chicago
Specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Race_and_ethnicity_Chicago.png
-
I think this is the first time in my life I've been accused of being a racist because I want to live near people of other races and ethnicities... bwa ha ha!
Urban areas aren't a sure-fire solution for diversity either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Chicago
Specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Race_and_ethnicity_Chicago.png
Oh I'm well aware, I lived in Chicago for four and a half years. But my zip code, 60626, was (at the time at least, don't know about now) the most ethnically diverse in the US. I'm definitely not saying that city living is kumbaya racial harmony, but there is at least the opportunity to meet people from other places and with different life experiences. Where I grew up that was not the case.
-
Oh I'm well aware, I lived in Chicago for four and a half years. But my zip code, 60626, was (at the time at least, don't know about now) the most ethnically diverse in the US. I'm definitely not saying that city living is kumbaya racial harmony, but there is at least the opportunity to meet people from other places and with different life experiences. Where I grew up that was not the case.
Well there is nothing about a diverse neighborhood that a little gentrification won't fix.
I'm still curious what Jamesqf meant by:
Sure, if you're so unfortunate as to have to live in an urban area, streetcars (or other mass transit) will get you to work and back just fine.
Jumping to racial implications misses any other urban-phobias that we could have dragged out of him first.
-
Plus the ability to associate with people who aren't white is nice!
You know, that may be the most unthinkingly racist statement I've seen since the days of George Wallace and Malcolm X. First, it assumes that non-white people don't live in rural areas - utterly false, as reference to census data will show. Second, there's the blanket assumption that non-white people are fundamentally different in anything but melanin content.
According to Census 2000, rural areas are 81.9% white, compared to 69.1% in the nation as a whole, meaning urban areas must be considerably less than 69.1%. Additionally, 9 of 10 rural African Americans live in the South so the rural composition of places like Michigan, where I grew up, is more like 88.4% white . I didn't say there are "NO" non-white people in suburbs/rural parts of the country, but there are way fewer. And in my experience there is a huuuuuuuuge difference between having an Asian Indian family in town and having an Asian Indian neighborhood packed with restaurants, grocers, civic organizations, clothing stores, book sellers, bars and clubs.
Census 2010 data doesn't appear to be totally available for this type of thing yet, or else I can't find it in my three minute googlethon.
Finally, there are a huge number of people who would be extremely offended to hear you reduce their cultural and ethnic heritage to nothing by saying there is no difference between them and white Americans. Embedded in your assumption is that everyone is just like you; they are not, and there is a lot to learn from experiencing their culture, which cannot be readily done in a place that is 88% white. "I don't see race" and "everyone is the same" are the last bastions of white racism.
http://216.92.48.246/pubs/RacePlaceandHousing/RacePlace&Housing_Race&Ethnicity.pdf (http://216.92.48.246/pubs/RacePlaceandHousing/RacePlace&Housing_Race&Ethnicity.pdf)
Hey, you are the racist poster that brought up the topic in the first place. Is there some reason you felt the need to do so?
Yes. Cultural diversity is an advantage of living in the city, and it doesn't exist to a significant degree outside of it. Plus, at least around Detroit, bashing "urban areas" is code for bashing African Americans.
I think this is the first time in my life I've been accused of being a racist because I want to live near people of other races and ethnicities... bwa ha ha!
Does that giant chip on your should get heavy sometimes?
-
I didn't say there are "NO" non-white people in suburbs/rural parts of the country, but there are way fewer.
True, your statement implied that you would be unable to associate with non-white people in a rural area. I assumed that the reason you thought that was that you believed there would be none there. Maybe I was too charitable, since the only other reasons I can think of reflect poorly on your personality. I've also found that it is far easier to get to actually know people in rural areas, rather than in cities where they're just passing faces in the crowd.
And in my experience there is a huuuuuuuuge difference between having an Asian Indian family in town and having an Asian Indian neighborhood packed with restaurants, grocers, civic organizations, clothing stores, book sellers, bars and clubs.
Still clinging to that assumption of "town", I see :-) But yes, there IS a difference: it's called overcrowding, and applies whatever the race or ethnicity of the people.
Finally, there are a huge number of people who would be extremely offended to hear you reduce their cultural and ethnic heritage to nothing by saying there is no difference between them and white Americans.
As offended as an acquaintance of mine, 3rd or 4th generation American of Asian ancestry, is when she's asked what country she's from? (Stockton) Or FTM, where's the difference in cultural diversity between your Indian immigrant family, and my Lithuanian immigrant neighbors? (Who are quite a bit whiter than I am :-))
Embedded in your assumption is that everyone is just like you; they are not, and there is a lot to learn from experiencing their culture, which cannot be readily done in a place that is 88% white.
As above, cultural differences aren't tied to race. Everyone is not like me (in fact, few people are, since I'm not from a mainstream American cultural background - for instance, I'd never eaten in a restaurant until I went off to college), but those differences have very little to do with race - and what connection there is is only a product of environment, not inherent. I've known a few black people whose life experiences were quite similar to mine (geeks are pretty much the the same everywhere), and many, many whites whose backgrounds (and current lifestyles) seem as exotically different as any Asian or African culture.
-
Oh I'm well aware, I lived in Chicago for four and a half years. But my zip code, 60626, was (at the time at least, don't know about now) the most ethnically diverse in the US. I'm definitely not saying that city living is kumbaya racial harmony, but there is at least the opportunity to meet people from other places and with different life experiences. Where I grew up that was not the case.
Well there is nothing about a diverse neighborhood that a little gentrification won't fix.
I'm still curious what Jamesqf meant by:
Sure, if you're so unfortunate as to have to live in an urban area, streetcars (or other mass transit) will get you to work and back just fine.
Jumping to racial implications misses any other urban-phobias that we could have dragged out of him first.
I'm sure there are some choice ones in there. If you look at my post that started this mess, the comment about diversity was a one-liner. He didn't address the real topic, which is why people wouldn't want to own a car. Seems to have something against public transit...
-
What is so unfortunate about urban areas, if you don't mind expanding?
What is so unfortunate about a feedlot, if you happen to be a cow?
You spend most of your life indoors, divorced from any contact with the natural world. Outside, you walk on pavement instead of dirt or grass, breathing exhaust fumes & other urban effluvia. You're constantly hemmed in by crowds of people, most of them making noise of some sort or other, which combines to make a constant din. Unless you're wealthy, the only place to find solitude is your caustrophobic little stall apartment...
Seems to have something against public transit...
I think you misread my statement. Public transit is a great thing when you have sizeable numbers of people wanting to get from point A to point B at about the same time. (Conditions that are likely to exist mainly in (sub)urban areas, no?) But can you imagine a cost-effective public transit system that would get me & the dogs to a trailhead somewhere in the Sierra this afternoon, then be there to pick us up when we return?
I'll also mention that I can, and do, get to work with the aid of a few electrons, thus bypassing any personal need for mass transit.
PS: Just a thought to get back on the OT of millenials not buying cars. How much do you suppose the typical millenial spends on tattoos, piercings, and similar forms of self-mutilation?
-
What is so unfortunate about urban areas, if you don't mind expanding?
What is so unfortunate about a feedlot, if you happen to be a cow?
You spend most of your life indoors, divorced from any contact with the natural world. Outside, you walk on pavement instead of dirt or grass, breathing exhaust fumes & other urban effluvia. You're constantly hemmed in by crowds of people, most of them making noise of some sort or other, which combines to make a constant din. Unless you're wealthy, the only place to find solitude is your caustrophobic little stall apartment...
Seems to have something against public transit...
I think you misread my statement. Public transit is a great thing when you have sizeable numbers of people wanting to get from point A to point B at about the same time. (Conditions that are likely to exist mainly in (sub)urban areas, no?) But can you imagine a cost-effective public transit system that would get me & the dogs to a trailhead somewhere in the Sierra this afternoon, then be there to pick us up when we return?
I'll also mention that I can, and do, get to work with the aid of a few electrons, thus bypassing any personal need for mass transit.
PS: Just a thought to get back on the OT of millenials not buying cars. How much do you suppose the typical millenial spends on tattoos, piercings, and similar forms of self-mutilation?
What is so unfortunate about living in the company of people, if you're a person?
A lot of your complaints are a matter of taste. You mention the small apartment as if a large apartment would be better. You mention a cost-effective public transit system (made possible by a critical density of people) as if it's a bad thing. I grew up in an extremely rural area, but am very happy with how green/natural my particular urban habitat is. I don't have a car currently, but it's a short ride out to several amazing wilderness areas, and if I wanted to commute to my job, plenty of rural areas to settle in. Even within the city though, there are plenty of secluded areas to get away in if you know where to look. I think you're discounting a very normal human experience - walking through a crowded open-air market enjoying the 'din', the smells, the sounds, and yes, the crowds, can be very enjoyable with the right mindset.
Be honest though, how often do you need to pack up the dogs and go to a trailhead this afternoon? How about the flip side - living in a rural area but are unable to do anything social without driving? There are tradeoffs either way, I guess.
PS: Just a thought to get back on the OT of millenials not buying cars. How much do you suppose the typical millenial spends on tattoos, piercings, and similar forms of self-mutilation?
Tattoos aren't that damned expensive, you sound like a real fun guy. Sure, they might cost some $$, but at least they last :P I content that tattoos and piercings aren't any worse than high heels as far as self-mutilation goes, and can at least have aesthetic appeal. You can easily find people who take it excess, but that isn't a reasonable way to judge an activity.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/baby-boomers-jobs-younger-workers-214210886.html
Is it too early (or too late, heh) to blame millennial's money troubles on baby boomers? If they hadn't lived far beyond their means housing prices etc wouldn't have been pumped as far in the first place and they could retire without working forever, holding onto jobs that could otherwise be filled by younger workers entering the workforce.
-
What is so unfortunate about urban areas, if you don't mind expanding?
What is so unfortunate about a feedlot, if you happen to be a cow?
You spend most of your life indoors, divorced from any contact with the natural world. Outside, you walk on pavement instead of dirt or grass, breathing exhaust fumes & other urban effluvia. You're constantly hemmed in by crowds of people, most of them making noise of some sort or other, which combines to make a constant din. Unless you're wealthy, the only place to find solitude is your caustrophobic little stall apartment...
Seems to have something against public transit...
I think you misread my statement. Public transit is a great thing when you have sizeable numbers of people wanting to get from point A to point B at about the same time. (Conditions that are likely to exist mainly in (sub)urban areas, no?) But can you imagine a cost-effective public transit system that would get me & the dogs to a trailhead somewhere in the Sierra this afternoon, then be there to pick us up when we return?
I'll also mention that I can, and do, get to work with the aid of a few electrons, thus bypassing any personal need for mass transit.
PS: Just a thought to get back on the OT of millenials not buying cars. How much do you suppose the typical millenial spends on tattoos, piercings, and similar forms of self-mutilation?
I am quite happy for all the cattle to stay in highly urbanized areas: leaves more space for the rest of us.
As for the tattoos, piercings, etc., who knows? The whole idea is so distasteful I would rather not hear the details or costs.
-
I am quite happy for all the cattle to stay in highly urbanized areas: leaves more space for the rest of us.
As for the tattoos, piercings, etc., who knows? The whole idea is so distasteful I would rather not hear the details or costs.
Cities are full of young people - they don't listen to their elders, probably like rock and roll, and some even have tattoos. Gosh, I bet they even have premarital sex! Our poor civilization....
For reals though, the neatest tattoos I've ever seen was a pair of full sleeves on a coworker who was... ~50ish, maybe? You could trace his life - both accomplishments and failures, happiness and sadness, comedy and tragedy, up and down his arms. It was pretty awesome imho, even if I'm not into tattoos and have none myself. But you know, those damned kids...
-
I am quite happy for all the cattle to stay in highly urbanized areas: leaves more space for the rest of us.
As for the tattoos, piercings, etc., who knows? The whole idea is so distasteful I would rather not hear the details or costs.
Cities are full of young people - they don't listen to their elders, probably like rock and roll, and some even have tattoos. Gosh, I bet they even have premarital sex! Our poor civilization....
For reals though, the neatest tattoos I've ever seen was a pair of full sleeves on a coworker who was... ~50ish, maybe? You could trace his life - both accomplishments and failures, happiness and sadness, comedy and tragedy, up and down his arms. It was pretty awesome imho, even if I'm not into tattoos and have none myself. But you know, those damned kids...
Frankly, I can't stand to even look at people with obvious tattoos or piercings. Disgusting.
-
Frankly, I can't stand to even look at people with obvious tattoos or piercings. Disgusting.
The one I hate is bridge piercings on people who have glasses - the glasses never seem to sit right with the piercing in the way. Which is only a small part of my hate. If you're going to put a barbell there, why not make the piercing magnetic and use it to stick the glasses to your face? No more temples, just good old fashioned science.
EDIT: This part of the article is gold:
It’s as if America’s youth are rejecting social conventions that generations have held in common for decades.
Look! Decades of tradition! Car culture is a new tradition, but it is tradition none the less.
-
I can't wait to see what kind of body modifications I'll hate when I'm old and am down on the kids. Fingers crossed that it's skin color gene modification, and not dirty needle tattoos outside the thunder dome...
-
Be honest though, how often do you need to pack up the dogs and go to a trailhead this afternoon?
Pretty much every afternoon, unless I go ride the horse instead :-) That's part of the point of working for myself: I set my own hours, so I can do that.
How about the flip side - living in a rural area but are unable to do anything social without driving?
Or not being able to do anything social because you live in a city, and the few of those millions of people you actually know are further away (in travel time, if not straight-line distance) than they would be in a rural area?
Tattoos aren't that damned expensive, you sound like a real fun guy. Sure, they might cost some $$, but at least they last :P
I don't know for sure*, not being in the market myself, but I've heard that they can get fairly expensive. And of course in ten or twenty years, you'll be wanting to pay a plastic surgeon to have them removed.
(* Edit: OK, made me curious. Per Google, a full-sleeve tattoo can cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $2500. Figure both arms, and maybe some body work too, and it could add up to more than I've ever paid for a car. Then piercings and whatever you put in the holes could pay for several years registration, insurance, and gas money...)
I think, though, that you miss a larger point here. Animals confined in conditions that offer little external stimulation often engage in self-mutilation. It seems humans aren't all that different. (Though I do agree about high heels, and could have added it to my list if I'd thought.)
I am quite happy for all the cattle to stay in highly urbanized areas: leaves more space for the rest of us.
Well, it's a bit of a dilemma. My selfish side is glad they stay there (and that I'm not one of them), but my altruistic side does not rejoice in their suffering.
-
Can I just put in a vote for bringing back street cars? I want to live in a community with street cars!
Thanks :)
-
(http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=382&d=1214037416)
-
Can I just put in a vote for bringing back street cars? I want to live in a community with street cars!
Thanks :)
Come to SF. We are buying old streetcars from all over the world, restoring them, and putting them into service.
http://www.streetcar.org/streetcars/
-
I am quite happy for all the cattle to stay in highly urbanized areas: leaves more space for the rest of us.
As for the tattoos, piercings, etc., who knows? The whole idea is so distasteful I would rather not hear the details or costs.
Cities are full of young people - they don't listen to their elders, probably like rock and roll, and some even have tattoos.
Does anyone younger than Gen X listen to rock and roll? And even a lot of Gen X set it aside.
-
I am quite happy for all the cattle to stay in highly urbanized areas: leaves more space for the rest of us.
As for the tattoos, piercings, etc., who knows? The whole idea is so distasteful I would rather not hear the details or costs.
1. City living is great. I am within a 5 minute bike ride of multiple friends, grocery stores, bars, and parks that are full of attractive college aged girls.
2. I don't get why some people knock tattoos so much. Tattoos are no more a form of self mutilation than obesity. Live and let live.
-
I am quite happy for all the cattle to stay in highly urbanized areas: leaves more space for the rest of us.
As for the tattoos, piercings, etc., who knows? The whole idea is so distasteful I would rather not hear the details or costs.
1. City living is great. I am within a 5 minute bike ride of multiple friends, grocery stores, bars, and parks that are full of attractive college aged girls.
2. I don't get why some people knock tattoos so much. Tattoos are no more a form of self mutilation than obesity. Live and let live.
I grew up in NYC. I know all about city living. Enjoy, I want no more of it.
Tattoos are a grotesque form of self mutilation, IMO. But we live in a free society so de gustibus non disputandam. But as a hiring manager, I would never pick a candidate with visible tattoos or piercings.
-
Yes! I'm 32. My husband is 34. So I'm a millenial while he's not. That must be why I refuse to get a driver's license and he in turn gets mad at me for it, because it's a sign that I'm narcissistic, apathetic, and pampered.
-
I grew up in NYC. I know all about city living.
If you had been sick all your life, could you really comprehend what it is like to be well? Or would you come to accept your debility as the normal state of affairs?
I don't get why some people knock tattoos so much. Tattoos are no more a form of self mutilation than obesity. Live and let live.
Because such forms of self-mutilation are symptomatic. And obesity IS another form of self-mutilation (as is anorexia): ever see an obese wild animal?
As for the idea that they're permanent artwork, tastes change. I would not particularly want to decorate my current house with the posters &c that I thumbtacked to the walls of my first apartments.
-
For all the people making tons of money on this site in the tech industry, the quote function on this site seems to be difficult for quite a few people to master...
-
For all the people making tons of money on this site in the tech industry, the quote function on this site seems to be difficult for quite a few people to master...
F'reals.
-
Can I just put in a vote for bringing back street cars? I want to live in a community with street cars!
Thanks :)
Come join us in Toronto, they're a major part of the backbone of our transit.
-
Tats are cool. I'd love to get one except I live in Japan and they don't go down well over here.
-
For all the people making tons of money on this site in the tech industry, the quote function on this site seems to be difficult for quite a few people to master...[/quote
F'reals.
[/quote
I don't know what you are talking about
-
I grew up in a rural area and it was amazingly boring. STL is much more fun.
I don't know the details and I hear it's expensive, but my understanding is that you can get tattoos removed. I'm also pretty sure there are a number of old tattooed people that don't regret getting tattooed.
Brewer, you actually discriminate against tattooed people? What type of work are you in/hire for?
-
Plus the ability to associate with people who aren't white is nice!
Second, there's the blanket assumption that non-white people are fundamentally different in anything but melanin content.
For once I agree with James!
This is exactly why I hate the term "people of color" so much, as though all non-white people are exactly the same. It automatically implies that white people are the default standard, and deserve a special category of their own.
Finally, there are a huge number of people who would be extremely offended to hear you reduce their cultural and ethnic heritage to nothing by saying there is no difference between them and white Americans.
I know that you mean well, and that many other people share your view, but I think you are actually the one reducing every non-white person's cultural and ethnic heritage to nothing. By saying there is no differences between them. Do I really have more in common with a fresh-off-the-boat South East Asian than I do with my white neighbor just because Xuan Tran and I both have in common that (most of) our DNA didn't originate in Europe (at least in the last few thousand years)? For that matter, is a recent Chinese immigrant really interchangeable with a recent Caribbean immigrant? They are not just "not white". They are Chinese and Caribbean (respectively).
Incidentally, James, you ought to stop trying so hard to convince people of the superiority of rural areas. If you succeed, there won't be any left. All the city folk will flood them and they'll all turn into suburbs.
And tattoos and piercings, they are like putting Christmas decorations on the trees in a pristine forest. You take natural beauty and make it all garish and tacky by trying to make it "more artistic" or whatever. The forest is wonderful and perfect. So is the human body. Art is, at best, a pathetic human attempt to try to match the feeling of awe nature can induce. Why take something already perfect, and cover it with art, which is merely an attempt to replicate that perfection?
I never did understand why we could look at other cultures, who stretch bone disks through their lips, bound their feet tiny, elongate their necks, cut or even sew up their sex parts, and say that is horrible and weird, and yet we don't think twice about almost all of our women punching holes through their ear lobes. And then hanging small decorations from the holes. Again, just like a Christmas tree!
-
Brewer, you actually discriminate against tattooed people? What type of work are you in/hire for?
Happily, I have managed to escape being a manager in this place for the length of my 5 year sentence, but I work in a very conservative, button-down culture. None of my coworkers have any visible tattoos of any kind and the only piercings I have ever seen are earrings on women (one per lobe). The dress code does not go all the way to suits and ties, but my fairly dressy business casual would have me violating some aspect of the dress code pretty much every day (I am in a branch office 500 miles away from my superiors, so I get away with it). In the home office people are routinely sent home to change their clothes in their first 6 months of employment, and a recent "mentoring" training session apparently included an HR person telling would-be mentors that it was important to instruct their mentees on the fine points of the dress code - such as the difference between peep-toed shoes (acceptable) and open-toed shoes (verboten).
As someone who was once the cause of the imposition of a dress code in another workplace (the stained shorts and T shirt that read "the way to a fisherman's heart is through his fly" were apparently the last straw), this grates on me every day.
-
For once I agree with James!
Yeah, amazing, isn't it? And on the tattoos/piercing/foot binding (AKA high heels) too.
This is exactly why I hate the term "people of color" so much, as though all non-white people are exactly the same. It automatically implies that white people are the default standard, and deserve a special category of their own.
Yeah, and from the other direction too: it implies that all "white" people are exactly alike. Now I was raised out of the mainstream(s) of "white" American culture, and have chosen to live my adult life in yet a third way, so it always irritates me when I'm lumped in with the TV-sports-watching, SUV driving white American middle class.
Incidentally, James, you ought to stop trying so hard to convince people of the superiority of rural areas. If you succeed, there won't be any left. All the city folk will flood them and they'll all turn into suburbs.
Yeah, I know. Gotta watch that altruistic streak :-)
And tattoos and piercings, they are like putting Christmas decorations on the trees in a pristine forest. You take natural beauty and make it all garish and tacky by trying to make it "more artistic" or whatever.
Yeah. Even though some of it IS art (and might look good framed on a wall), the body is just not the place. Then there's all the really crude stuff, like the common barbed wire effect around the upper arm...
-
Yeah, and from the other direction too: it implies that all "white" people are exactly alike. Now I was raised out of the mainstream(s) of "white" American culture, and have chosen to live my adult life in yet a third way, so it always irritates me when I'm lumped in with the TV-sports-watching, SUV driving white American middle class.
The white Americans are not a monolithic class either. They have differing backgrounds, political and religious views, linguistic abilities, skills and talents...
Maybe the solution is to not lean so heavy on generalities, not to push the generalities on the next group.
-
a recent "mentoring" training session apparently included an HR person telling would-be mentors that it was important to instruct their mentees on the fine points of the dress code - such as the difference between peep-toed shoes (acceptable) and open-toed shoes (verboten).
That is truly insane and makes me sad for the human race.
For the record: I have no tattoos and don't care for them much. I just try not to judge people for non-logical reasons like tattoos, music tastes, race, etc.
-
I just try not to judge people for non-logical reasons like tattoos, music tastes, race, etc.
Why are tattoos and music tastes not valid ways to judge people? As for instance if I want to hire intelligent people, wouldn't visible evidence that a candidate was willing to spend quite a bit of money for the privilege of sitting for hours while being stuck with needles (and without anesthetic, too!) tend to indicate that they probably are not all that intelligent?
-
I just try not to judge people for non-logical reasons like tattoos, music tastes, race, etc.
Why are tattoos and music tastes not valid ways to judge people? As for instance if I want to hire intelligent people, wouldn't visible evidence that a candidate was willing to spend quite a bit of money for the privilege of sitting for hours while being stuck with needles (and without anesthetic, too!) tend to indicate that they probably are not all that intelligent?
I'll wager you're not running your own business if that's how you're screening people. If you are then you're missing out on some good hires.
I do hire people and the only criteria I have about tattoos are:
a) that they can be covered up if you have to do a sales presentation
b) the content that is visible isn't offensive (racial, anti-anything etc)
Beyond that, as an employer I love it if people have an interesting story to tell. It generally indicates that they'll adapt to whatever the workplace throws at them and get along great with customers and colleagues.
-
I just try not to judge people for non-logical reasons like tattoos, music tastes, race, etc.
Why are tattoos and music tastes not valid ways to judge people? As for instance if I want to hire intelligent people, wouldn't visible evidence that a candidate was willing to spend quite a bit of money for the privilege of sitting for hours while being stuck with needles (and without anesthetic, too!) tend to indicate that they probably are not all that intelligent?
I work for one of the largest companies in the world. We have an exceptionally casual dress code. I wear video game shirts regularly. My boss(a male) has a pony tail down to the small of his back. Guys have ear piercings, many people have tattoos, though none visible with a long sleeve shirt. I won't drop names, but I can assure you that every single person that has visited this site knows our name and logo, and we don't suck at what we do.
Another big name, Google. Dress code: Wear clothes.
From what I understand getting a job at Google is exceptionally hard and they tend to hire only the best and brightest, and rightfully so, they also do not suck at what they do.
To posit that tattoos or piercings or manner of dress or preference of music is somehow a key indicator for intelligence is really quite sad and I hope you can learn better, you'll likely be better off for it.
Edit: To add about the body mod discussion, I understand you find them distasteful. I obviously don't agree, but I bet there is a good chance that you have an alcoholic drink once in a while. That is self mutilation in a similar way to body mods. It obviously is not permanent, but you are purposely harming your body because you enjoy some aspect of the process. And even if you don't drink, I bet you wouldn't discriminate against someone who occasionally imbibes.
Mormons view many(all?) foreign chemicals to be harming your body, such as caffeine. Something is always extreme to someone else. It makes little sense to judge things that are obviously no indicator of intelligence.
Also, I believe it was Bakari that said the body is perfect as it is. That is a tad naive and simplistic unless you are a practicing Sikh and do not cut your hair or imbibe in caffeine or alcohol. After all, your body is 100% perfect and should never be changed to suit ones preference, right? Hope everyone has 20/20 vision forever and never considers LASIK, you're removing cornea!
As for urban vs rural, it's pretty much impossible to say one is better than the other. That one is definitely a personal opinion with the only right answer being what each person prefers.
-
For the record: I have no tattoos and don't care for them much. I just try not to judge people for non-logical reasons like tattoos, music tastes, race, etc.
Same, I don't have tattoos or piercings and have no inclination at all to get any for myself, but I'm surprised by the harsh stances I see here in regards to people who do. I know all types of people with tattoos, and they are more diverse than one may think. Some are often well-hidden, especially if they work in a corporate environment.
And also, +1 unitsinc.
-
Edit: To add about the body mod discussion, I understand you find them distasteful. I obviously don't agree, but I bet there is a good chance that you have an alcoholic drink once in a while. That is self mutilation in a similar way to body mods. It obviously is not permanent, but you are purposely harming your body because you enjoy some aspect of the process. And even if you don't drink, I bet you wouldn't discriminate against someone who occasionally imbibes.
Mormons view many(all?) foreign chemicals to be harming your body, such as caffeine. Something is always extreme to someone else. It makes little sense to judge things that are obviously no indicator of intelligence.
Moderate alcohol consumption is actually healthier than abstention. I understand what you're getting at, but that particular example only works for binge drinking.
-
Edit: To add about the body mod discussion, I understand you find them distasteful. I obviously don't agree, but I bet there is a good chance that you have an alcoholic drink once in a while. That is self mutilation in a similar way to body mods. It obviously is not permanent, but you are purposely harming your body because you enjoy some aspect of the process. And even if you don't drink, I bet you wouldn't discriminate against someone who occasionally imbibes.
Mormons view many(all?) foreign chemicals to be harming your body, such as caffeine. Something is always extreme to someone else. It makes little sense to judge things that are obviously no indicator of intelligence.
Moderate alcohol consumption is actually healthier than abstention. I understand what you're getting at, but that particular example only works for binge drinking.
I always understood it as even drinking to very light intoxication(buzz) is enough to be bad(not that I haven't surpassed mildly buzzed a time or twelve) in the sense you're killing brain cells and making your liver quite unhappy. But I am no expert by any stretch.
-
I always understood it as even drinking to very light intoxication(buzz) is enough to be bad(not that I haven't surpassed mildly buzzed a time or twelve) in the sense you're killing brain cells and making your liver quite unhappy. But I am no expert by any stretch.
Summary: Moderate is 1 drink/day for females, 1-2 for men, but it's probably good to also give your liver some time off every now and then. The benefit is increased HDL. Saying it's "good for you" is a public health generalization -- the benefits are thought to outweigh the harms. That doesn't mean there are no harms, but brain and liver damage are expected to be minimal at these levels. Nevertheless, everyone is different, so calibrate for your own circumstances (e.g., family history of liver disease, low body weight, etc.).
-
I recently discovered two (maybe more) of my coworkers also live within 6 blocks of the office.
Maybe we (all three of us are in our early-to-mid 20s, I think that means we're millennials?) don't own cars because we stopped moving so friggen far away from where we need to be every day.
[Full disclosure: they both own cars, but since I'm rocking only 4 blocks away, I do not.]
-
Also, I believe it was Bakari that said the body is perfect as it is. That is a tad naive and simplistic unless you are a practicing Sikh and do not cut your hair or imbibe in caffeine or alcohol. After all, your body is 100% perfect and should never be changed to suit ones preference, right? Hope everyone has 20/20 vision forever and never considers LASIK, you're removing cornea!
I was talking about aesthetics, silly, I think it was clear in context. And I was describing my personal feeling towards it, not condeming everyone who does it - whether in the form of pierced ears for earrings, make-up, circumcision, or those rings that the Kayan Lahwi and South Ndebele women wear on their necks. To me its all the same thing. I do question the cultural conformity of anyone who is willing to do permanent damage to themselves because it makes them attractive or cool, but plenty of conformists are otherwise intelligent and decent people. I would never get one, but plenty of my friends, and even my partner has tattoos.
Not that its' relevant, but I very rarely drink alcohol, or caffeine.
I wonder how these narcissistic, apathetic, pampered kids these days are effecting the tattoo parlor industry? Do they get more, because of their narcissism, or less, because they are too apathetic to bother?
-
The apathy goes away when they're intoxicated, and that seems to be when most people get tattoos as far as I can tell...
=P
-
I just try not to judge people for non-logical reasons like tattoos, music tastes, race, etc.
Why are tattoos and music tastes not valid ways to judge people? As for instance if I want to hire intelligent people, wouldn't visible evidence that a candidate was willing to spend quite a bit of money for the privilege of sitting for hours while being stuck with needles (and without anesthetic, too!) tend to indicate that they probably are not all that intelligent?
When I was in high school, I wasn't allowed to get piercings or tattoos by my parents, but I could do anything I wanted with my hair/clothes within reason. For most of highschool, My hair was electric blue, I occasionally wore fangs you could put in with denture creme, Super wide leg pants (32inch to 40 inch openings per leg), trenchcoat with spikes on the shoulders, spiked red leather collar, black fingernail polish (never went as far as makeup though).
All of this while being in the National Honor Society, Singing in our school's elite music group, becoming an Eagle Scout, being in the top 10 of my class, etc...
I did this to combat the exact same type of bigotry that was everywhere in the small town, rural area I was in.
Anyone who didn't want to bother with me due to the way I dressed/looked wasn't someone that I cared to bother with anyways, so it acted as a good personality filter against people who were unable to see past the physical appearances on the outside. Anyone who came up to me and got to know me forgot that I had blue hair in about 5 min of talking with me.
I kept the blue hair up though college until I needed to find a real job, and figured it wasn't worth the cost' associated with the negative impressions in the standard work force. I still feel like going back to my day glow blue hair.
-
Art is, at best, a pathetic human attempt to try to match the feeling of awe nature can induce.
Since the thread has already been hijacked... I understand that this may have been a bit of a throw away comment to make a point about body modification, but I profoundly disagree with this assessment of art.
Art, at it's best, is a full expression by the artist of the human experience. At it's best, it does not imitate, it creates. It recapitulates not only awe in a form others can understand, but grief, pain, love, joy, the full gamut of our emotions can be expressed. At it's best it is not an attempt to copy or an primarily an attempt to impress, it is expression by the artist of a feeling that cannot be otherwise expressed. I don't sing to emulate the birds, I sing because how could I do otherwise?
-
This post just explained all the weird stares I got from older businessmen when I boarded a 6am plane while wearing a suit and lugging a briefcase full of legal files. I have a discrete nose ring that I forget about 99.99% of the time. They must have been wondering how on earth I got a professional job even with a visible mutilation.
Good thing the judges who have awarded me favorable judgments and courts and law firms I have worked for didn't seem to let it get in the way of recognizing my qualifications.
-
Art is, at best, a pathetic human attempt to try to match the feeling of awe nature can induce.
Since the thread has already been hijacked... I understand that this may have been a bit of a throw away comment to make a point about body modification, but I profoundly disagree with this assessment of art.
Art, at it's best, is a full expression by the artist of the human experience. At it's best, it does not imitate, it creates. It recapitulates not only awe in a form others can understand, but grief, pain, love, joy, the full gamut of our emotions can be expressed. At it's best it is not an attempt to copy or an primarily an attempt to impress, it is expression by the artist of a feeling that cannot be otherwise expressed. I don't sing to emulate the birds, I sing because how could I do otherwise?
+1
As a general matter, I find the dismissiveness of the arts and culture to be one of the saddest things I see on this forum (not that it's by any means universal, just far more often mentioned here than in the rest of my life). I don't think that "art" merits the same treatment as "toys."
-
I never did understand why we could look at other cultures, who stretch bone disks through their lips, bound their feet tiny, elongate their necks, cut or even sew up their sex parts, and say that is horrible and weird, and yet we don't think twice about almost all of our women punching holes through their ear lobes. And then hanging small decorations from the holes.
I think the obvious answer to this portion of your question is function. The first four practices you mention inhibit the function of the body, causing disorders that severely limit the ability of the body to work as it should and some cause lifelong pain and irreversible damage to major tissues. Tattooing and the types of minor piercing practiced by most (lets not get into a discussion of the extremes, since the original disparagement was towards ear piercing), these do not cause lifelong pain or affect the natural function of the tissue.
I personally do not have tattoos and have no desire to get any, but I was pretty surprised and the vehement distaste they provoked in some here.
-
I kept the blue hair up though college until I needed to find a real job, and figured it wasn't worth the cost' associated with the negative impressions in the standard work force.
Right there you have the major difference between clothing/makeup and tattoos/body modifications. One's permanent, one you can change according to your taste, current mood, job-hunting needs, or whatever. Nor did I, back in the days when I did such things, have problems wearing jeans & a t-shirt in a room full of suits, or going to symphony concerts in my motorcycle leathers...
Further, to circle back to where this started, I would imagine a few bottles of blue hair dye would cost far less than the $10K or so that might be spent on tattoos. And hurt a lot less, too :-)
As a general matter, I find the dismissiveness of the arts and culture to be one of the saddest things I see on this forum (not that it's by any means universal, just far more often mentioned here than in the rest of my life). I don't think that "art" merits the same treatment as "toys."
Unfortunately, we live in an age in which most "art" is either pretentious fakery, outright fraud, or - sometimes quite literally - trash. See e.g. http://www.amazon.com/The-Million-Stuffed-Shark-Contemporary/dp/0230620590 If you don't want your art/culture to be treated with dismissiveness, try creating something that doesn't deserve to be dismissed.
-
I just try not to judge people for non-logical reasons like tattoos, music tastes, race, etc.
Why are tattoos and music tastes not valid ways to judge people? As for instance if I want to hire intelligent people, wouldn't visible evidence that a candidate was willing to spend quite a bit of money for the privilege of sitting for hours while being stuck with needles (and without anesthetic, too!) tend to indicate that they probably are not all that intelligent?
At this point I feel like I've been duped by a troll...
-
I just try not to judge people for non-logical reasons like tattoos, music tastes, race, etc.
Why are tattoos and music tastes not valid ways to judge people? As for instance if I want to hire intelligent people, wouldn't visible evidence that a candidate was willing to spend quite a bit of money for the privilege of sitting for hours while being stuck with needles (and without anesthetic, too!) tend to indicate that they probably are not all that intelligent?
At this point I feel like I've been duped by a troll...
While I like to read Jamesqf's posts as he brings an interesting perspective to many things, he has a few trollish qualities. Namely posting bait and ignoring counter arguments. Overall he seems to be a pretty ok guy though and not someone who I would say is actually a troll.
-
When I was in high school, I wasn't allowed to get piercings or tattoos by my parents, but I could do anything I wanted with my hair/clothes within reason. For most of highschool, My hair was electric blue, I occasionally wore fangs you could put in with denture creme, Super wide leg pants (32inch to 40 inch openings per leg), trenchcoat with spikes on the shoulders, spiked red leather collar, black fingernail polish (never went as far as makeup though).
All of this while being in the National Honor Society, Singing in our school's elite music group, becoming an Eagle Scout, being in the top 10 of my class, etc...
I did this to combat the exact same type of bigotry that was everywhere in the small town, rural area I was in.
Anyone who didn't want to bother with me due to the way I dressed/looked wasn't someone that I cared to bother with anyways, so it acted as a good personality filter against people who were unable to see past the physical appearances on the outside. Anyone who came up to me and got to know me forgot that I had blue hair in about 5 min of talking with me.
I kept the blue hair up though college until I needed to find a real job, and figured it wasn't worth the cost' associated with the negative impressions in the standard work force. I still feel like going back to my day glow blue hair.
Kriegsspiel: That's SLC Punk, dude.
Cinder: What?
Kriegsspiel: You just described the plot from 'SLC Punk.'
-Everyone agrees-
Kriegsspiel: Yea, come to think of it, that's not the first time you've described your life in the way of SLC Punk.
(http://cf.drafthouse.com/_uploads/galleries/31018/slcpunk5.jpg)
-
While I like to read Jamesqf's posts as he brings an interesting perspective to many things, he has a few trollish qualities. Namely posting bait and ignoring counter arguments.
If I ignore things, it's either because I have limited time & attention, don't think I have anything useful to add, or (sometimes) because rebutting a piece of obvious nonsense takes an order of magnitude more time than posting the original nonsense.
As for bait... Well, one person's bait is another's interesting discussion topic :-)
PS: And on the subject of art, here's either bait or material for discussion:
Definition of ART
1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a: a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts
b archaic : learning, scholarship
3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced
b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan
b : the quality or state of being artful
6: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art
Notice how many of those usages depend on skill & learning? Yet today's art (or at least the mainstream of it) seems to have almost entirely eliminated the skill component.
-
Well if we're going to use dictionaries to prove our understanding of a subject i prefer:
Definition of art
noun
1the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power:
the art of the Renaissance
great art is concerned with moral imperfections
she studied art in Paris
works produced by human creative skill and imagination:
his collection of modern art
an exhibition of Mexican art
[as modifier]:
an art critic
creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture:
she’s good at art
2 (the arts) the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance:
the visual arts
[in singular]:
the art of photography
3 (arts) subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects):
the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible
the Faculty of Arts
4a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice:
the art of conversation
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/art?q=art (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/art?q=art)
Notice how most of the definitions focus on creativity and expression? I think that's what missing in art appreciation, the ability to view the creative impulse as a expression of humanity without valuation for the result. Just because something is not easily and objectively monetizable does not mean that it has no value. Just because you don't see value, doesn't mean it is valueless.
Also if we're going to talk about things we dislike, I just want to throw out white people dreads. Although my office mate has them, and we still manage to be friends.
-
Heaps of people wear dreads where I'm from, it doesn't mean anything more than they like wearing dreads.
-
Notice how most of the definitions focus on creativity and expression?
Notice how most of the definitions in the other dictionary don't? Which was, after all, the point I was trying to make: that (as in so many other areas of life) skill has virtually disappeared from contemporary art. (Which probably explains the different dictionary entries: the Oxford seems to concentrate on current American usage, the one I cited has a broader historical range.) Thus if you look at historical artists, you could admire the skill that went into say Leonardo's "Last Supper" or Michaelangelo's "Pieta" without in the least subscribing to the messages they were intended to convey.
Just because something is not easily and objectively monetizable does not mean that it has no value.
Read the linked book: putting a stuffed shark in a tank* and selling it for $12 million? That seems monetizable to me :-)
*And it wasn't even the "artist" who caught the shark, stuffed it, or put it in the tank. He just hired it done.
-
The tattoo/blue hair discussion reminded me of a funny dressing down we received at my job a little while ago. I work for a huge very conservative company. And the president started with "When I walk around here I wonder - Where the hell are the kids with blue hair?" He then explained that that we weren't hiring creative people who aren't afraid to challenge conventional thinking. And believe me, this place is as serious and conservative as it gets- full of middle aged white guys. I'm still waiting for the blue haired kids to show up (by mass transit!)
And I just have to say that insulting people for not buying cars on THIS WEBSITE is hilarious. What's next? Hating people for not using $100 bills as kindling in the fire?
-
Read the linked book: putting a stuffed shark in a tank* and selling it for $12 million? That seems monetizable to me :-)
I read the link the first time. I got it you don't like the stuffed shark. However, I considered it a non-sequitur, since my original argument was about art at it's best, and you have chosen an example that is obviously not art at it's best to dismiss any contemporary works, confining my argument to a period and attempting to change the argument by having me defend contemporary avante garde works which is not something I desire or have the knowledge to do.
Heaps of people wear dreads where I'm from, it doesn't mean anything more than they like wearing dreads.
What else would wearing dreads mean? I don't attach meaning, I just don't get it. If you have straight fine hair, it's not a natural style, it's a lot of work to initiate and I guess I feel like it's a silly affectation. I was trying to bring levity, but sometimes the only person that thinks I'm hilarious is me, my bad.
-
He then explained that that we weren't hiring creative people who aren't afraid to challenge conventional thinking.
(Sigh) But blue hair is so conventional. If it's not magenta, dead black, or shaved off entirely...
And I just have to say that insulting people for not buying cars on THIS WEBSITE is hilarious.
Why? Quite apart from the fact that searching for plausible explanations is not the same as insulting. I always thought this place was about enhancing quality of life, not about being a miser. So for most people, having a modestly-priced car enhances quality of life. Not having one seems as bad as the other extreme of spending most of your income on a giant SUV.
-
I read the link the first time. I got it you don't like the stuffed shark. However, I considered it a non-sequitur, since my original argument was about art at it's best, and you have chosen an example that is obviously not art at it's best to dismiss any contemporary works...
So where exactly IS this contemporary "art at it's best"? I certainly haven't seen any of it, at least not wearing the "art" label. Now the world certainly has a number of people who are skilled at the arts of drawing, painting, &c (or their digital equivalents), but they aren't, as far as I am aware, making careers as "artists". They're doing video game animation, paperback book covers, and similar commercial work.
-
I'm pretty sure the article is saying that the "They’re narcissistic. Apathetic. Pampered. And addicted to their four-inch screens" stereotype is NOT true.
-
I read the link the first time. I got it you don't like the stuffed shark. However, I considered it a non-sequitur, since my original argument was about art at it's best, and you have chosen an example that is obviously not art at it's best to dismiss any contemporary works...
So where exactly IS this contemporary "art at it's best"? I certainly haven't seen any of it, at least not wearing the "art" label. Now the world certainly has a number of people who are skilled at the arts of drawing, painting, &c (or their digital equivalents), but they aren't, as far as I am aware, making careers as "artists". They're doing video game animation, paperback book covers, and similar commercial work.
Pretty sure that the great painters worked for commissions too.
-
And I just have to say that insulting people for not buying cars on THIS WEBSITE is hilarious. What's next? Hating people for not using $100 bills as kindling in the fire?
I don't think that's what most of either this thread or the linked article is about.
-
Pretty sure that the great painters worked for commissions too.
Sure, I have no problem with people making money off their art, especially when using art in the sense of an acquired skill. After all, computer programming is an art, and I've made a good bit of money from it.
The point I'm trying to get across is that there is the "art" world: the whole racket of dealers, museums, critics &c (as described in the Stuffed Shark book), then there is the commercialized art world in which skill is of primary importance, and there is an absolutely uncrossable barrier between the two. No one who displayed art-as-skill in their work would ever be allowed into the inner circle of the "creative" arts.
-
Mass transit just can't take you to most of the interesting places, including that secluded back lane with your g/b-friend.
Heh, the image of a couple in the back seat of a little Honda Insight made me laugh :D
-
Mass transit just can't take you to most of the interesting places, including that secluded back lane with your g/b-friend.
Heh, the image of a couple in the back seat of a little Honda Insight made me laugh :D
Especially since the Honda Insight doesn't have a back seat :-)
I must admit, in my younger days, I did some interesting things in an Austin-Healey Sprite :-)
-
So where exactly IS this contemporary "art at it's best"? I certainly haven't seen any of it, at least not wearing the "art" label. Now the world certainly has a number of people who are skilled at the arts of drawing, painting, &c (or their digital equivalents), but they aren't, as far as I am aware, making careers as "artists". They're doing video game animation, paperback book covers, and similar commercial work.
Why wouldn't commercial works be considered contemporary art? Because they don't have what you consider the art label? I would suggest not worrying so much about what other people consider art, true appreciation should come fro the individual.
Perhaps it's true that nothing seen read or heard in the last 30 or 40 years has moved you, or perhaps nothing created, performed or written has been up to the skilled standards of your exacting taste. Either way I will continue to enjoy music poetry, art, design and literature (the creative arts if you will) and continue to believe that they add substance to human life even if they don't have the Jamesqf seal of approval. It must be my narcissism and apathy kicking in.
Hmm, I wonder if this is how all those tattooed people feel...
-
Why wouldn't commercial works be considered contemporary art?
Because you don't find them for sale in art galleries, hung in art museums, or commented on favorably by art critics.
I would suggest not worrying so much about what other people consider art, true appreciation should come fro the individual.
Because those self-appointed guardians of the art world don't allow such works to come before the public except as part of the commercial work.
[qupte]Perhaps it's true that nothing seen read or heard in the last 30 or 40 years has moved you, or perhaps nothing created, performed or written has been up to the skilled standards of your exacting taste.[/quote]
Partly true, though I wouldn't call my taste all that exacting. I have of course heard & seen a lot of new-to-me work in those 30-40 years, but (outside of writing) it was mostly created centuries ago, and in the case of music, performed by small groups of eccentrics like me.
Either way I will continue to enjoy music poetry, art, design and literature (the creative arts if you will) and continue to believe that they add substance to human life...
And I will continue to find that substance in things which were created in the past, because look as hard as I can, it just isn't in the new.
-
Why wouldn't commercial works be considered contemporary art?
Because you don't find them for sale in art galleries, hung in art museums, or commented on favorably by art critics.
Wrong, Wrong, and of course, Wrong
http://arton5th.com/dr-seuss-collection/
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=3325
http://www.criticsatlarge.ca/2010/04/declining-art-of-movie-poster.html
(Three random examples in a minute of Googling. Not guaranteed to be the best examples.)
-
Quite a different thing. If someone - say Dr. Seuss or Winston Churchill - attains celebrity status, then whatever that person does will acquire a certain cachet that's entirely separate from any merit in the work itself. As for instance, the way even the most mundane documents acquire considerable value simply because they were signed by Abraham Lincoln: http://www.sj-r.com/news/x1143356210/Items-signed-or-written-by-Abraham-Lincoln-often-sell-for-thousands#axzz2VwD6dXrz
As for your second link, it's a CHAIR (and footstool), fer crying out loud! A useful & perhaps comfortable piece of furniture, perhaps, but art?
Now for a contrary example of a competent artist belittled by the "art" world: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/04/why-was-thomas-kinkade-loathed-by-art-critics.html
-
Now for a contrary example of a competent artist belittled by the "art" world: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/04/why-was-thomas-kinkade-loathed-by-art-critics.html
You're confusing art and kitsch.
-
Now for a contrary example of a competent artist belittled by the "art" world: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/04/why-was-thomas-kinkade-loathed-by-art-critics.html
You're confusing art and kitsch.
It sort of reminds me of the obsession with redefining "retirement" here. He's fixed on a particular definition of "art" to the exclusion of all others and variation, and his definition largely involves technical mastery (rather than, e.g., creative expression). That's fine, but one dimensional, and no amount of technical mastery is sufficient to make great art.
-
You're confusing art and kitsch.
Now there's the perfect example of the point I'm trying to make: you don't like Kinkade's work because it doesn't meet your exacting standards of taste. Fine, and to be honest I don't like it either. But I think you would have to agree that his drawing & painting display a very high standard of skill. He decided on the effects he wanted, and captured them perfectly.
Compare that with the absolute non-skill (but considerable chutzpah!) of for instance presenting your very messy unmade bed as a work of "art": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Bed Sorry, but I'll take kitsch over crap any day of the week.
...and no amount of technical mastery is sufficient to make great art.
Agreed, for the sake of argument, but once again you miss the point. Technical mastery may not be sufficient to make great art, but it is necessary. Without that mastery, the output is indistinguishable from garbage.
-
Agreed, for the sake of argument, but once again you miss the point. Technical mastery may not be sufficient to make great art, but it is necessary. Without that mastery, the output is indistinguishable from garbage.
I don't miss the point; I disagree with your claim of its contours: Technical mastery is not required to make great art, although a sufficient degree of technical skill for a particular project is. I think this most often comes through in photography.
-
Why wouldn't commercial works be considered contemporary art?
Because you don't find them for sale in art galleries, hung in art museums, or commented on favorably by art critics.
I would suggest not worrying so much about what other people consider art, true appreciation should come fro the individual.
Because those self-appointed guardians of the art world don't allow such works to come before the public except as part of the commercial work.
I should restate: I don't think you should let how others define art interfere with your enjoyment of what you like.
You're confusing art and kitsch.
...Sorry, but I'll take kitsch over crap any day of the week.
Actually, Kitsch (the movement not the intended to be insulting term) is a movement that seems very much in line with your ideals. I don't have much familiarity with it, but there are some brief overviews, that suggests subscribers disagree with the modern establishment interpretation of art as concept divorced from output or action as put forth by Emmanuel Kant. (Fun fact I used to carpool with one of his great-great-grand nephews).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kitsch_Movement#Exhibitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kitsch_Movement#Exhibitions)
http://artbabel.blogspot.com/2010/04/philosophy-of-kitsch-kant-kunst-and.html (http://artbabel.blogspot.com/2010/04/philosophy-of-kitsch-kant-kunst-and.html)
...Without that mastery, the output is indistinguishable from garbage.
I'm not going to argue on the necessity of skill to execute great works, but are you really suggesting that there is no leeway between a masterwork and garbage? It seems like you would miss a lot of enjoyment from life with that view
...and in the case of music, performed by small groups of eccentrics like me.
It's unfair to slip this in and then not tell us what kind of music that might be. I'm trying to think what would be the most eccentric music I could think of, Tuvan throat singing accompanied by harpsichord? Don't leave us in suspense :)
-
It's unfair to slip this in and then not tell us what kind of music that might be. I'm trying to think what would be the most eccentric music I could think of, Tuvan throat singing accompanied by harpsichord? Don't leave us in suspense :)
I guess "classical" music on period instruments, with derision directed at the use of the term "classical." Or early Duran Duran on period synthesizers.
-
It's a bit pointless arguing about art. Much of what is argued inevitably comes down to taste.
I don't get modern art. It's not my thing, it's too abstract, the ridiculousness doesn't work for me. Not to my taste. That doesn't mean it's not art though.
It's foolish to think that the quality of art is described by technical mastery. Look at music from the last 100 years or so . . . blues was often played by people who weren't technically gifted (John Hooker, Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson), pop is often extremely simplistic (The Beatles, Creedence Clearwater Revival, The Animals, Bob Dylan), Funk and Reggae is also very uncomplicated . . . that doesn't make it better or worse than more technically demanding types of music (progressive metal, bebop, some bluegrass, classical). Just different.
You don't have to love everything that's art, but there's no need to try and denigrate stuff you don't like. It's just kinda petty and sad.
-
You don't have to love everything that's art, but there's no need to try and denigrate stuff you don't like. It's just kinda petty and sad.
Like tattoos and piercings!
-
I should restate: I don't think you should let how others define art interfere with your enjoyment of what you like.
Sure, I agree. But they interfere with availability. For instance, if (as is the case in my state) the law requires that a certain percentage of public works contracts be set aside for "art", and the powers-that-be in the "art" world define art as a collection of welded scrap metal, then I have to look at that junk pile every time I walk by the university library. Or I am forced to deal with months of traffic congestion because "art" (the two trapezoidal shapes in the upper left of the picture) must be installed on a new freeway interchange: http://www.rgj.com/article/20130327/NEWS/130327007/NDOT-Meadowood-interchange-Reno-open-fully-May
Actually, Kitsch (the movement not the intended to be insulting term) is a movement that seems very much in line with your ideals.
Humm... I had, of course, assumed that you were using "kitsch" in the insulting sense, as I hadn't heard of it as a movement. Thanks for the second link, which if you filter out the philosophical Kant*, does seem to pretty well agree with my thoughts.
(Pun intended :-))
I'm not going to argue on the necessity of skill to execute great works, but are you really suggesting that there is no leeway between a masterwork and garbage?
Of course not. But the modern conceptual art world denigrates all skill, and deliberately removes it.
It's unfair to slip this in and then not tell us what kind of music that might be.
Oh, things like traditional Celtic (see e.g. Altan, Ceoltori, early Clannad), or the classical baroque (Bach, Handel, etc).
I'm trying to think what would be the most eccentric music I could think of, Tuvan throat singing accompanied by harpsichord?
I confess I'd never heard of Tuvan throat singing, but I have always loved the harpsichord. But how about lyrics in Gaelic, accompanied by wire-strung harp, hammered dulcimer, uilleann pipes, &c? Eccentric enough?
-
You'd be great at parties
-
I should restate: I don't think you should let how others define art interfere with your enjoyment of what you like.
Sure, I agree. But they interfere with availability. For instance, if (as is the case in my state) the law requires that a certain percentage of public works contracts be set aside for "art", and the powers-that-be in the "art" world define art as a collection of welded scrap metal, then I have to look at that junk pile every time I walk by the university library. Or I am forced to deal with months of traffic congestion because "art" (the two trapezoidal shapes in the upper left of the picture) must be installed on a new freeway interchange: http://www.rgj.com/article/20130327/NEWS/130327007/NDOT-Meadowood-interchange-Reno-open-fully-May
If art is as important to you as you make it sound, perhaps you would enjoy living in or near a city more than you are letting on. There is no shortage of world class art where I am.
-
I'm amused this discussion has taken a turn to "what is art?"
My definition of art is pretty simple: anything created on purpose specifically to instill emotion, creativity or to inspire.
Whether something is good art or bad art is wholly subjective. A chair can be art if it is designed not merely to act functionally by to inspire or stir feelings--maybe of a moment in time or a season or just a mood. The intent and thought behind creating is what makes something art, not necessarily the level of objective skill.
So, for example, if you randomly throw paint at a wall in the hopes you can sell it to some poor, duped art lover, that isn't art. There's no creative or inspired thought behind it. However, if the same result was the product of careful creativity, inspired thought--if there was a purpose and meaning to each splatter--that is art. Doesn't mean you have to like it, or think that it's particularly worthy art. But it's art. It's the act of purposeful creativity and inspiration.
-
I'm amused this discussion has taken a turn to "what is art?"
yeah, sorry about that. That was my fault, but definitely not my intention.
My rant was purely personal opinion - personal preference really, and not meant as anything more.
And I was specifically talking about the artistry of tatoos (a large portion of which isn't anyway); though it is also true that I personally have never really "got" art - or, I should say, visual art, paintings, sculptures (regardless of both creativity and technical skill). Its not just that "most" of it is "bad" or whatever, but (for me personally), even the best of it just seems like an imitation of nature, which does a much better job of invoking the emotions that art attempts to.
On the other hand, music and storytelling (in all its many forms) are creative endeavors frequently refereed to as artistic, and I enjoy (some) of those immensely.
-
So, for example, if you randomly throw paint at a wall in the hopes you can sell it to some poor, duped art lover, that isn't art. There's no creative or inspired thought behind it.
True, but it gets sold for large sums - if, of course, you have an "in" with the dealer network.
Now the crucial question is this: How is anyone supposed to know that there is actually creative or inspired thought behind those random splatters on the wall? Because the marketers selling the "art" are telling you how creative & inspired their latest discovery is. A suspicious sort like me would think the creativity and inspiration are wholly devoted to separating credulous & insecure marks from their money. And unlike most con games, selling this sort of "art" is completely legal :-)
You really need to read "The Emperor's New Clothes" :-)
-
At the end of the day, "art" is whatever it is "artists" make. A lot of what people in here are decrying as "not art" has to been as a reaction against the norms of the time. A bunch of paint thrown on a canvas looks sloppy and lazy to our modern eye, but when it was first done it was downright radical and gave the gatekeepers of "proper" art the vapors.
For a very long time art evolved toward technical mastery in pursuit of verisimilitude but thankfully human beings have more expansive minds than that, and so we got all sorts of great, weird stuff.
Besides, what's the point of trying to paint a photorealistic woodland scene when you can just take a picture of the woods?
-
So, for example, if you randomly throw paint at a wall in the hopes you can sell it to some poor, duped art lover, that isn't art. There's no creative or inspired thought behind it.
True, but it gets sold for large sums - if, of course, you have an "in" with the dealer network.
Now the crucial question is this: How is anyone supposed to know that there is actually creative or inspired thought behind those random splatters on the wall? Because the marketers selling the "art" are telling you how creative & inspired their latest discovery is. A suspicious sort like me would think the creativity and inspiration are wholly devoted to separating credulous & insecure marks from their money. And unlike most con games, selling this sort of "art" is completely legal :-)
You really need to read "The Emperor's New Clothes" :-)
Thing is -- I don't personally care. If an artist sells some unthinking, unfeeling piece of work, thus duping the "art world," I don't care. That is especially so if the unthinking, unfeeling piece of work manages to stir emotion or feeling from the buyer. That's the other side of the coin. Ultimately, that it's simply the cost of the existence of art in society. Most of what you deem to be worthless was probably created by somebody who felt something real during the process, though. You just don't like it.
-
Besides, what's the point of trying to paint a photorealistic woodland scene when you can just take a picture of the woods?
It's what you put in the woods that makes it art. For an example, take Albert Bierstadt http://www.albertbierstadt.org/Valley-of-the-Yosemite-1864.html Now those are pretty realistic paintings, wouldn't you say? Yet I've been on the ground where a good few of them were painted, and they aren't much like that at all. So furnishing Albert with a high-quality digital camera wouldn't have produced anything like the same results.
Or to go to an extreme, take Salvador Dali: http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/salvador-dali/santiago-el-grande Now I'd say that (barring the 'fig leaf'), that's a pretty realistic painting of a horse, no? But the picture is not something you could get either with a camera, or by tossing paint at a wall.
Most of what you deem to be worthless was probably created by somebody who felt something real during the process, though. You just don't like it.
Wrong. I'm firmly convinced that the people creating "art" of this sort are of two kinds: either they are willing participants in a deliberate con-game, or - like the followers of say Scientology - they've been suckered into falling for the con themselves, and are caught in a trap of self-delusion.
Nor is it that I just don't like it, as there's plenty of real art that I don't particularly like, yet can respect.
-
What I have learned from this thread:
Things a poster likes are actually objectively good.
Things a poster dislikes are actually ovjectively bad.
This is useful to know, as I had not previously been exposed to this concept on the Internet.
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3456/3257727248_836bb65cf7.jpg)
(http://images.wikia.com/mk/images/c/c8/Abandon_thread.gif)
-
That snail thing is pure art!
-
Young people don't buy cars because young people are smart enough to know that the last few generations of cars are far superior in almost every way, and it is a waste of money to buy anything newer.
Damn, are we getting smarter each generation or what??
-
"We live in a decaying age. Young people no longer respect
their parents. They are rude and impatient. They frequently
inhabit taverns and have no self control."
Inscription, 6000 year-old Egyptian tomb1
"When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful and impatient of restraint".
Hesiod, 8th century BC
"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"
Plato, 4th Century BC
"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint... As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."
Attributed to Peter the Hermit, AD 1274
"Juvenile delinquency has increased at an alarming rate and is eating at the heart of America"
US juvenile court judge, 1946
-
The whole premise is flawed. If you follow the links it is back to an article by folks pushing alternatives to cars and trying to rein in highway spending. The reduction in average miles driven starting in 2008 is the main piece of data, but could also be explained by high gas prices, economic woes, and especially retiring baby boomers who no longer need to commute.
I predict millenials will buy cars and drive more than ever.
-
The whole premise is flawed. If you follow the links it is back to an article by folks pushing alternatives to cars and trying to rein in highway spending. The reduction in average miles driven starting in 2008 is the main piece of data, but could also be explained by high gas prices, economic woes, and especially retiring baby boomers who no longer need to commute.
I predict millenials will buy cars and drive more than ever.
It'll be interesting to see. There's a large group that wants to take their parents lifestyle and expand on it. Then, there's a large group, many of whom are hipsters, which I'm a part of (23) who question why so many expenditures are "necessary" and how can they be optimized?
-
"Juvenile delinquency has increased at an alarming rate and is eating at the heart of America"
US juvenile court judge, 1946
And he was wrong? How, exactly?
-
The reduction in average miles driven starting in 2008 is the main piece of data, but could also be explained by high gas prices, economic woes, and especially retiring baby boomers who no longer need to commute.
Not to mention telecommuting. My total driving miles have certainly decreased, even though I probably drive more for - or more precisely, to get to - recreation than before telecommuting.
-
When EVs become more mainstream and cheaper, I can see overall driving miles beginning to climb again. Cars will be more environmentally friendly and very cheap to drive (vs the price of gas).
-
"Juvenile delinquency has increased at an alarming rate and is eating at the heart of America"
US juvenile court judge, 1946
And he was wrong? How, exactly?
Well for one we've started involving law enforcement in issues that used to be handled by teachers and administrators. The more police officers (often called "resource" officers) we put in school, the rate kids at those schools get criminal records goes up. I wonder why that is. A school in I believe Texas even let prison guards employed by Corrections Corporation of America conduct drug searches. Let that sink in for a second - we're letting employees of a corporation who has a financial incentive to find drugs (more arrests = more inmates = more $$$) search teenagers for illegal drugs (almost always cannabis) in our public schools.
The school-to-prison pipeline is very real in certain areas - often with large populations of color and poverty.
-
The school-to-prison pipeline is very real in certain areas - often with large populations of color and poverty.
But those are consequences, which are, if anything, evidence that he was right.
-
My take on that quote was that the judge was suggesting that juveniles are committing more and more crime, while I'm arguing that we've changed the definition of crime and our willingness to enforce harsh punishments. Small school yard fights are turning into felony assaults. Texting a nude picture of yourself results in a distribution of child pornography charge and years on a sex offender list. Zero tolerance policies at schools push kids into the streets when they're suspended and expelled.
-
I just try not to judge people for non-logical reasons like tattoos, music tastes, race, etc.
Why are tattoos and music tastes not valid ways to judge people? As for instance if I want to hire intelligent people, wouldn't visible evidence that a candidate was willing to spend quite a bit of money for the privilege of sitting for hours while being stuck with needles (and without anesthetic, too!) tend to indicate that they probably are not all that intelligent?
Thomas Edison, Winston Churchill, Roosevelt..just to name a few.
-
"Juvenile delinquency has increased at an alarming rate and is eating at the heart of America"
US juvenile court judge, 1946
And he was wrong? How, exactly?
Rising over what period of time, compared to what other period of time? How did we define delinquency before during and after those times? What rate of increase is alarming, and what does "eating at the heart of America" even mean?
The statement is so vague and abstract it is impossible for it to be either wrong or right.
-
The point of my post is basically that every generation since written history began believes that the one after it is irresponsible etc.
-
The point of my post is basically that every generation since written history began believes that the one after it is irresponsible etc.
I know. I agree. I found it rather ironic that our resident old angry guy implied that the most recent one was the "correct" one!
-
Without arguing as to the truth of the Ford story, I think you are greatly missing the point. Sure, if you're so unfortunate as to have to live in an urban area, streetcars (or other mass transit) will get you to work and back just fine. But isn't there more to life than that? (Indeed, isn't that why so many of you want early retirement?) Mass transit just can't take you to most of the interesting places, including that secluded back lane with your g/b-friend.
The vast majority of young people live in urban areas. How, exactly, do you propose meeting said girl or boyfriend if you don't live anywhere near many young folks, there are few social spaces or events catering to young folks, and you can't go out for more than one drink without a ton of planning?
-
The vast majority of young people live in urban areas. How, exactly, do you propose meeting said girl or boyfriend if you don't live anywhere near many young folks, there are few social spaces or events catering to young folks, and you can't go out for more than one drink without a ton of planning?
On-line dating?
Another question worth asking is how you expect to meet/get to know that potential significant other when going out for a drink is a long, long way from your idea of a pleasant way to spend time?
Maybe I'm slow, but it took me years to figure out that the only people I was likely to meet while hanging out in bars & clubs were people that liked to drink and listen to poplar music, which made it pretty darned improbable that I was going to meet anyone with much in the way of shared interests.
But in the years since I stopped doing that, I've managed to get involved with interesting women that I've met in graduate classes (physic and CS), at political meetings, sailboarding, bike touring in Scotland, riding horses, and even the old introduction by mutual friends.
-
The vast majority of young people live in urban areas. How, exactly, do you propose meeting said girl or boyfriend if you don't live anywhere near many young folks, there are few social spaces or events catering to young folks, and you can't go out for more than one drink without a ton of planning?
Werd.
-
The vast majority of young people live in urban areas. How, exactly, do you propose meeting said girl or boyfriend if you don't live anywhere near many young folks, there are few social spaces or events catering to young folks, and you can't go out for more than one drink without a ton of planning?
On-line dating?
Another question worth asking is how you expect to meet/get to know that potential significant other when going out for a drink is a long, long way from your idea of a pleasant way to spend time?
Maybe I'm slow, but it took me years to figure out that the only people I was likely to meet while hanging out in bars & clubs were people that liked to drink and listen to poplar music, which made it pretty darned improbable that I was going to meet anyone with much in the way of shared interests.
But in the years since I stopped doing that, I've managed to get involved with interesting women that I've met in graduate classes (physic and CS), at political meetings, sailboarding, bike touring in Scotland, riding horses, and even the old introduction by mutual friends.
Why should anyone take relationship advice from you when in another thread you said that your lack of sex was a crisis of similar magnitude to the economic condition of subsistence farmers in Ethiopia?
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/living-off-of-other-people's-work/msg79027/#msg79027
-
The vast majority of young people live in urban areas. How, exactly, do you propose meeting said girl or boyfriend if you don't live anywhere near many young folks, there are few social spaces or events catering to young folks, and you can't go out for more than one drink without a ton of planning?
On-line dating?
Another question worth asking is how you expect to meet/get to know that potential significant other when going out for a drink is a long, long way from your idea of a pleasant way to spend time?
Maybe I'm slow, but it took me years to figure out that the only people I was likely to meet while hanging out in bars & clubs were people that liked to drink and listen to poplar music, which made it pretty darned improbable that I was going to meet anyone with much in the way of shared interests.
But in the years since I stopped doing that, I've managed to get involved with interesting women that I've met in graduate classes (physic and CS), at political meetings, sailboarding, bike touring in Scotland, riding horses, and even the old introduction by mutual friends.
Why should anyone take relationship advice from you when in another thread you said that your lack of sex was a crisis of similar magnitude to the economic condition of subsistence farmers in Ethiopia?
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/living-off-of-other-people's-work/msg79027/#msg79027
Now that's ad hominem.
-
Yeah basically...
But I don't think MMM's blog would be quite as popular if he was working 2 jobs and was 50k in debt (but was still giving out the same advice) do you? That and I remembered how terrible I thought that original quote was and his last post reminded me of it... (^^)b
OK as for addressing his actual advice:
I don't think online dating actually alleviates the problem of "there are less potential partners and less things to do in small towns than big cities." If you are trying to meet people online you still have to rely on the fact that they live close enough to you to meet occasionally or you'd have to *gasp* rely on those 4 inch screens that James hates so much.
Online dating in a big city seems to offer the same advantages as regular dating in a big city, more potential partners and more things to do when you are with your partner.
James did not refute either point or offer a solution to them. Instead it seems like he addressed a straw man argument of "I wanna go to lots of bars and clubs and hook up" which nobody in this thread said as far as I can tell.
-
But I don't think MMM's blog would be quite as popular if he was working 2 jobs and was 50k in debt (but was still giving out the same advice) do you?
Things do change, over time. As for instance I can give you pretty good advice, or at least advice based on first-hand knowledge, on how to live in poverty, even though I'm far from poor these days. I might even use instances from my poorer days to illustrate points I'm trying to make.
I don't think online dating actually alleviates the problem of "there are less potential partners and less things to do in small towns than big cities."
Of course it does depend on one's tastes, but I've always found that there is practically nothing interesting to do in large cities (especially if you dislike drinking & the club scene), but plenty to do in rural areas. There are also many things which can be done in rural areas which can't be done in cities (pleasantly, anyway), but not many of which the reverse is true.
If you are trying to meet people online you still have to rely on the fact that they live close enough to you to meet occasionally or you'd have to *gasp* rely on those 4 inch screens that James hates so much.
Not necessarily, as you can always use a 21" or so screen. For physical meetings, remember that it's not so much absolute distance as travel time.
James did not refute either point or offer a solution to them. Instead it seems like he addressed a straw man argument of "I wanna go to lots of bars and clubs and hook up" which nobody in this thread said as far as I can tell.
Oh? It was said here:
How, exactly, do you propose meeting said girl or boyfriend if you don't live anywhere near many young folks, there are few social spaces or events catering to young folks, and you can't go out for more than one drink without a ton of planning?
Pretty plainly implies that you're going out to bars/clubs and drink, no?
I addressed point #1 (fewer things to do) above. Point #2 (fewer people) is perhaps less obvious, but a little thought should show that what matters for relationships is not how many people are in close proximity to you, but how many you can actually get to know. In a city, you're just one more face in the crowd, while in the country you're an individual. I've lived in cities, sometimes for a year or more, without exchanging more than an occasional word with the people in the neighboring apartments or stores where I shopped. (Nor, to spare us another ad hominem, is this just a personal problem, as I observe the same behavior in others.)
-
Of course it does depend on one's tastes, but I've always found that there is practically nothing interesting to do in large cities (especially if you dislike drinking & the club scene), but plenty to do in rural areas. There are also many things which can be done in rural areas which can't be done in cities (pleasantly, anyway), but not many of which the reverse is true.
I feel like you saying the bolded part is like some sort of breakthrough. I genuinely find your ideas interesting but a lot of time it seems like you are convinced that your ideas are objectively correct (maybe its just me...) I am curious what things you enjoy doing in rural areas that are more difficult in cities. It seems like living in a big city would make it easier going to museums, plays, sporting events, seeing historic landmarks (in my case temples, shrines, statues etc.) playing rec league sports, walking/biking around and occasionally eating at restaurants or going out to a bar or club. I'm not suggesting all of these things are impossible in rural areas but more difficult.
If you are trying to meet people online you still have to rely on the fact that they live close enough to you to meet occasionally or you'd have to *gasp* rely on those 4 inch screens that James hates so much.
Not necessarily, as you can always use a 21" or so screen. For physical meetings, remember that it's not so much absolute distance as travel time.
I think travel time varies widely depending on the city or how rural the town is doesn't it? I am pretty confident I could meet up with 15 million people or more if we each rode a train 30 minutes.
Oh? It was said here:
How, exactly, do you propose meeting said girl or boyfriend if you don't live anywhere near many young folks, there are few social spaces or events catering to young folks, and you can't go out for more than one drink without a ton of planning?
Pretty plainly implies that you're going out to bars/clubs and drink, no?
I'll halfway concede this one (maybe more). Its entirely possible that my reading comprehension isn't as strong as I imagined it. Saying you can't go out for more than one drink does heavily imply that the goal is to have more than one drink. And bars and clubs are typically the place where young people go to drink more than one drink. Your response to that is totally fair. Sorry. BUT :P I don't think the quote taken as a whole is necessarily talking about only bars or clubs though "social spaces or events" can mean just about anything, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find examples of them in small towns that don't exist in cities.
I addressed point #1 (fewer things to do) above. Point #2 (fewer people) is perhaps less obvious, but a little thought should show that what matters for relationships is not how many people are in close proximity to you, but how many you can actually get to know. In a city, you're just one more face in the crowd, while in the country you're an individual. I've lived in cities, sometimes for a year or more, without exchanging more than an occasional word with the people in the neighboring apartments or stores where I shopped. (Nor, to spare us another ad hominem, is this just a personal problem, as I observe the same behavior in others.)
Your own advice of online dating could help out in that situation. There are also a lot of classes you can take, groups or clubs you could join you could hang out with coworkers... How did you make friends in the town you live now? Are you sure that those tactics wouldn't also work in a big city?
-
I feel like you saying the bolded part is like some sort of breakthrough. I genuinely find your ideas interesting but a lot of time it seems like you are convinced that your ideas are objectively correct (maybe its just me...)
Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. I try to make the differences clear, but I can't always manage to do so in a post that's short enough that people will read it. Perhaps I also assume that people reading share more of a common background than they actually do; that for instance they are familiar with things like biophilia and nature deficit disorder.
I am curious what things you enjoy doing in rural areas that are more difficult in cities.
Hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, riding the horse - all of which includes observing scenery, plants & wildlife. Gardening. Taking the dogs to the beach to chase tennis balls, or really anywhere they can run free.
It seems like living in a big city would make it easier going to museums, plays, sporting events, seeing historic landmarks (in my case temples, shrines, statues etc.) playing rec league sports, walking/biking around and occasionally eating at restaurants or going out to a bar or club. I'm not suggesting all of these things are impossible in rural areas but more difficult.
Sure, most of those things are more possible in cities. The question is really to what extent those are actually interesting, versus being things to do in cities because the alternative is to sit in your apartment staring at the walls. I'd also argue that while you certainly can walk & bike in cities, you're going to be spending a lot of mental effort on avoiding traffic.
While historic landmarks aren't something we have a lot of here in the western US (bar the occasional ghost town or abandoned mine), in Europe I've found a lot of historic things are in pretty rural areas. In Britain, for instance, there's the Ridgeway, Hadrian's Wall, many neolithic sites like Avebury, Callanish, and Castlerigg that are about as rural as you can get. On the mainland, there are a lot of Roman & pre-Roman sites that are fairly well out in the country, as for instance Aventicum and the Roman villa near Orbe-Boscéaz.
PS: If you read French, here's a link to some historic sites in the part of Switzerland where I used to live: http://www.yverdonlesbainsregion.ch/fr/Culture_Patrimoine/Sites_historiques
-
Hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, riding the horse - all of which includes observing scenery, plants & wildlife. Gardening. Taking the dogs to the beach to chase tennis balls, or really anywhere they can run free.
I guess by city you must mean "extremely large, dense city, like SF or NY"?
Cause, in Oakland and in Richmond, I could/can do all of those things with no more than a 15minute bike ride (including biking in wilderness, with no traffic and few people).
Well, except skiing, since there is no snow here, but it is more than worth it to me to forgo skiing to never have to deal with freezing temperatures!
I can also the things wepner finds fun, with about as long a ride, just in different directions.
Most important for me, though, on the topic of dating, is having a large enough pool of people. In a city of 400,000, there are only a handful who are within close enough demographics (age, gender, religion, politics, single) who I am particularly interested in exploring a connection with. If in the options for me here only 1 in hundreds looks interesting, how much slimmer would my chances of finding someone compatible be if there were only 4,000 people within biking distance?
I don't fail to get to know my neighbors better because the city is large and anonymous. I fail to get to know them better because I start to get to know them, and they aren't interesting to me.
I guess its easier to find interesting people the closer to the norm your religion/politics/recreation/etc are
In truth, I would really love to live in a rural area, and one of the main things stopping me is the lack of options in people. If I were single I would never consider it for a moment.
-
Hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, riding the horse - all of which includes observing scenery, plants & wildlife. Gardening. Taking the dogs to the beach to chase tennis balls, or really anywhere they can run free.
I guess by city you must mean "extremely large, dense city, like SF or NY"?
Cause, in Oakland and in Richmond, I could/can do all of those things with no more than a 15minute bike ride (including biking in wilderness, with no traffic and few
You can do this in SF too... Just choose location wisely.
-
Cause, in Oakland and in Richmond, I could/can do all of those things with no more than a 15minute bike ride (including biking in wilderness, with no traffic and few people)
I'm surprised that you could do those things in the Oakland area, Never actually lived there, but travelling around the area I never saw much in the way of open space. Maybe a little in the hills, but then you're right down to suburbia turning into city on the other side.
In any case. you're not doing those things in the city, you're just lucky enough to have a city that is a short distance from non-city. I could do some of that starting from San Jose, too, and getting out of Lausanne to country was a 15-30 minute bike ride. But those places are exceptions, with a fortunate combination of geography and political pressures to keep open space.