> In 2018, Bloomberg reported something similar. “Though employment rates have been climbing back from the abyss, young men never caught up again,” writes Jeanna Smialek. “Millennial males remain less likely to hold down a job than the generation before them, even as women their age work at higher rates.”

> Admittedly, the focus of Smialek’s article and the data she cites is mainly around men without a college degree. But the explanation that Nathan Butcher, then a 25-year-old high school graduate, gave her — “I’m very quick to get frustrated when people refuse to pay me what I’m worth” — is strikingly similar to the one Carlin gives me.

Am I wrong in reading this as "An article on Bloomberg talked about young men mostly without college degrees, and I found a college graduate who sounds like someone from that article, so I can extrapolate this for all young men"? It's not even a handful of anecdotes; it's just the one, and is presented without additional content to help describe why this one case is representative, which is fairly disappointing.

And while the beginning is at least pretty fair in how it represents its hyperlinks, which do lead to real data that is definitely useful and interesting, I started to notice that they got less frequent towards the end. There were things said by a Michael Madowitz but:

The Michael Madowitz cited throughout the article is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress, which Wikipedia describes as a "public policy research and advocacy organization which presents a liberal viewpoint on economic and social issues". Not that there's anything explicitly and directly wrong with that, but I'm certain the author could've found a source without an explicit political lean, or have compensated for it somehow by bringing in other viewpoints.

On the whole, I would say that while some of the content this article is made of/links to is useful, the composition itself is not.

    [Investing in] crypto played a big part in having any actual money to survive