Hacker News Reader

Comment by timr | Hacker News Reader

As the curmudgeons say: pride goeth before the fall.

I'm not saying that Matt is wrong, or that the WSJ is right, but this essay was just a bit too...precious...for my tastes.

I don't have the answers, and I don't have much confidence in anything, outside of myself. That said, if I know one fact about the world, it's that very few of the self-confident 22-year-olds that I meet are going to get rich from their big brains and hard work. If history teaches us anything, it's that most smart people will fail -- repeatedly and painfully. So, while it's not the right time for the adults to shake their walkers at the children for running on the lawn, perhaps it would be prudent for the kids to hold back on the self-congratulatory essays, in anticipation of the day when it all goes pear-shaped?

I'm not much older than Matt, but even I can detect a distinct generational shift in attitude toward work; I know where the WSJ editorial is coming from, even if I don't agree with its conclusions. And while I'm sure that the brash 20-somethings that I know believe that self-investment and autonomy are the keys to avoiding their parents' fate, that probably has more to do with the abject failure of all previous models of work, than the proven success of this one.

In ten years, some of you will be rich, successful and powerful. Most of you -- despite all of your hard work and independence -- won't be. Which brings me to another thing that the curmudgeons say: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Youth and arrogance are eternal companions.

View on HN

> In ten years, some of you will be rich, successful and powerful. Most of you -- despite all of your hard work and independence -- won't be.

So why spend 60 hours a week in a suit under fluorescent lights in an 8' x 8' cube either way?

Right, we'll all be happier. It's not about being rich, it's about being the primary beneficiaries of our labor and striking a proper work-life balance.

Perhaps. Just try to remember that yours is not the first generation to pursue these goals.

I think there used to be a different balance between various things. You could expect to find a 'good company', dedicate a lot of your live to it, and be more or less reciprocated. These days, it's "every man for himself". In Europe, they have, in some places, attempted to legislate this relationship, which I don't agree with, but sometimes I feel there may be something we are missing out on in terms of long term, loyal employer/employee relationships. I'm not sure I'd want that myself, having pretty much grown up with the hopping around + brutal layoffs style common in tech, but still... it makes you think.

I think that's exactly it. It's just taken a couple of generations to adapt to this new reality.

My parents (well, my mom at least, my dad was an entrepreneur) would never quit their jobs. This was something that was unheard of. Xer's would be happy with whatever job came their way. Now, the millenials are fully understanding that their jobs are about as secure as their car parked in the bad part of town.

Honestly, corporations have changed how they treat their employees, and so the employees are adapting.

Right... it's a problem with solutions at different equilibriums (I'm not sure of the exact way to phrase that), and I'm not sure that what we are moving towards is necessarily the best for all people/jobs/companies: sure, there's more flexibility and responsiveness, but as an employee, I have figured out at this point that I don't really have any more loyalty to an employer than they are likely to have for me, and perhaps we both lose out because of it in some ways, at least for certain combinations of people/jobs/companies.

I'm not sure that what we are moving towards is necessarily the best for all people/jobs/companies:

That I think is the key. Everyone figures that it'll be great when we're all sitting around in our pj's "working", but will it? We're talking about a change to the fundamental nature of our society. There will be winners and losers, but that's a very different world from the one we know.

It's not that Gen-Xers were happy with whatever job came our way, it's that we had rent to pay and food to buy (and had no desire to live with Mom and Dad). Once the economy got better (and our businesses succeeded), we got picky too.

You might have what it takes to walk the walk, but don't jump to conclusions before you've trod the path of a truly awful economy.

I'm gen X. I'm actually in my third "career". Trust me, I didn't do security after leaving the army because I liked it.

You're 100% correct though, I have no problem limiting my tolerance for bad situations these days.

Well, it certainly looks like we'll have the opportunity.

I was born in 1975, so I've been around the block... if not many times, a few, at least.

My point was that once upon a time, companies and their employees were likelier to stick together through good times and bad. These days the equation has changed: companies are liable to dump you when quarterly profits aren't good, and you're likely to dump a company at the first whiff of something better. That's better in some ways, but I think we've also given up something that may be harder to quantify. For instance, if you're a happy worker and not worried about the next quarter, you can also invest in the company long term, rather than strictly looking out for your own interests, and vice versa, even if there's a bad quarter. Said companies also had time to invest in things like creating Unix, and lots of other R&D that wasn't immediately registered as profitable.

I don't know that I'd be happy like that, and I think that the cream of the crop in today's world oughtn't look to other people's companies as a place to make their mark; still, I think it's something that bears thinking about. Perhaps the pendulum will swing back at some point in the future.

I think it is similar to today's economic problems. When everyone else is being flaky, now is a good time to establish a reputation for dependability.

You should take a look at the book 'Supercapitalism" by Robert Reich - it may give you a new perspective on how business has evolved over the past 30 years.

One of the major themes is that the focus went from people as citizens and unto people as consumers. Thus the reason for corporations changing their behavior. It's as much the consumer's fault as the corporations'.

That's the thing with a corporation. It can only sell what people want to buy. It's like when people complain about Starbucks taking over the high street, well, Starbucks can't exist where people don't want its products and services, same as any corporation.

I have a pet theory that this is why some people have this visceral hatred of corporations: they're a mirror to the people, and people don't like what they see.

Makes sense to me. I also have a theory that with the world becoming more and more related with media being more and more similar across countries, your neighbors are suddenly all the celebrities and people on TV.

And we know that you value your worth relatively to what your neighbors have. So with your neighbors suddenly being much better off due to them being celebrities, you end up feeling poorer and must play the consumerism game.

I'll try to rewrite this to make more sense later - pretty tired now.

While it is true that a corporation can only sell what people want to buy, a lot of large corporate entities have spend a lot of time and money researching how to influence what people want to buy. To a really ridiculous degree. Furthermore, a lot of large corporate entities have no problem doing things that the vast majority of people would consider immoral (at the very least) to reduce their costs, or increase the likelihood of someone purchasing more of their product(s).

People who hate corporations for being corporations generally aren't really thinking about what they don't like about said corps, and also rarely take the time to consider how the corporations actions would be justifiable (in a human sense, not necessarily just in the profit-motive sense) to the people running them.

I think that what people tend to rail against is corporations like Monsanto. Sure, they can only sell what 'people' want to buy - but they also have no problem with showing utter disregard for human life or the environment, furthermore what they sell is not marketed at individuals - they end up being only able to sell what other corporations want to buy (who in turn don't know or don't care about said disregard for human life or the environment), and have enough money to buy their way out of most legal trouble.

No, but ours is the first to do so en masse and be widely pilloried for them, at least in this country.

Hm. I don't know...when people say things like that, it tends to reflect feelings of persecution more accurately than fact.

As recently as the late 1960s, American youth were idealizing personal freedom, quality of life and independence, and "adults" were criticizing them for it (probably in the WSJ). San Francisco is practically a monument to the era...

The people you refer to in the 1960's didn't actually _do anything_ they just talked about doing something (there's a great South Park episode about this).

Matt and many others are doing what he talks about.

Oh, but they did in the 30s.

One could call it so far the closest thing to a true Marxist revolution.

Workers in control of the means of production.

Most of the Gen-Y's that I've worked with have been pretty intelligent, but very arrogant and largely useless, because they hide their inexperience behind their arrogance and claim they're doing things a "new way" even when it's considerably worse than the "old" way.

> claim they're doing things a "new way" even when it's considerably worse than the "old" way.

I wonder about that. When LiveJournal first had its scaling difficulties in 2002, anyone with any experience in programming kinda rolled their eyes at what Brad was doing and thought "This college kid doesn't have a clue." I mean, writing the whole app in Perl? Relying on MySQL boxes that went down frequently and usually took a whole cluster with them? Walking clusters to build a page? Putting your object traversal logic in the app instead of convenient SQL queries?

Everybody knows that the way to build a scalable webapp is to write in Java or C++, buy an Oracle database and leverage the thousands of man-years they've put into making it perform well on top-end hardware clusters, use stored procedures and constraints to offload processing to that database, and getting a big SAN for storage. Scalable webapps were a solved problem in 2002: after all, EBay and Amazon had done it, as had dozens of Fortune 500 companies.

Fast-forward to 2008. Now, memcached is standard scaling procedure. Federation among dozens of cheap MySQL boxes is standard procedure, with boxes arranged as master/master pairs to deal with the pesky failure problems. Everybody uses commodity hardware, and big server vendors like Sun and IBM are in serious trouble.

I think the real issue is that young workers have much stronger economic incentives to embrace disruptive technologies. They have more work years ahead of them and less investment in existing technologies, so it makes a lot of sense for them to choose technologies that suck now but will (or could) be big in a couple years, because if their bet pays off, they're suddenly on a level playing field with people 20 years their senior.

It's not always blind exuberance, arrogance, and inexperience that makes young people choose new technologies that are "worse" than their old alternatives. They could be taking a very shrewd (and unverbalized, if they're that smart) "fuck off, elders" risk.

Sometimes that's true. However, it usually isn't, and the gen-y's usually can't admit it when they're wrong.

Most of the gen-y's I've worked with produced utter crap, and I've left a few jobs now because I got tired of fixing their stuff while they were busy taking credit for it.

>Just try to remember that yours is not the first generation to pursue these goals.

Ours is the first generation with the technology to enable it.

I'm pretty sure that our parents had new technology, too. More to the point, I'll bet that when they were 23, they were bragging about how their new technology was going to allow them to change the world. It's almost a cliche, really.

Granted, our didn't have computers or the internet; technology has marched onward. But regardless of whether we're discussing the modem or the mimeograph, the story of the young usurping the old with 'modern' technology is a classic.

Not all technology is created equal. The ability to communicate, coordinate, and compute has reduced the optimum size of the firm in many industries. What is more important, it has reduced the minimum size of a successful firm. Steam power and heavy industry, by contrast, had the opposite effect.

Ultimately, you both can be right. It's about where you stand relative to everyone else. If the younger folks are enabling themselves via tech faster than the older, it should be possible to position yourself better.

I think it's more a testament to the improvements we've made in technology how easy it is for kids to become BIG deals quickly with good ideas.

A young man sets out to seek his fortune...

Yes, it's the beginning of a fairly tale, a standard mythological motif - by which I don't mean it is fictional or trivial, but that it is universal. BTW: Matt does acknowledge that the next generation will do the same to his (at the end).

He's right about greater productivity - but if everyone is more productive, then the competitive bar simply resets at a higher level. It's an endless trudge, if the finish line recedes as you approach...

There's a sophisticated argument that with a smaller firm-size, you have more CEO's. The problem with competitive success remains that not everyone can be a winner - it's a zero-sum game by definition. But everyone can have a family. Everyone can have the satisfaction of improvement and mastery. Everyone can enjoy the thrill of risking a lesser thing for a greater thing. Everyone can take pride in effort and sacrifice for a worthy goal.

And ultimately, these things are immensely more satisfying than vacationing for months in Europe.

Talkin bout my generation

Repeat after me:

The economy is not a zero-sum game. The economy is not a zero-sum game. The economy is not a zero-sum game.

There does not need to be a loser for every winner.

We can all be happy and affluent.

Happiness, however, apparently is a zero-sum game:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/29109.php

(Actually, the research in question had caveats: absolute income correlated with happiness until one's basic physical & health needs were satisfied. After that point, it didn't matter: instead, what mattered was how well you were doing relative to your peer group. So for there to be winners, there had to be losers as well.)

Well all that proves is that the average person is an idiot. We knew that.

From the WSJ article Matt is rebutting: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455219391652725.html?mod=...

"They want to be CEO tomorrow,"

"I deserve favors from others"

"I know that I have more natural talents than most."

expect ready access to senior executives, even the CEO, to share their brilliant ideas.

People have their own definitions of winning. If I want to be a millionaire and I have 1000 dollars in savings I am a loser. If I want to own a home and I rent an apartment I am a loser. The parameters of the game are not well defined and the rules are not universal.

I had an interesting conversation with a co-worker from the Midwest and for the first time I understood how the defition of winning and happiness differs. I don't think there has ever been a time in my life where I needed something and couldn't have it whereas my co-worker had to work hard for everything he has. His definition of "winning" is having a nice place to sleep, being able to eat a nice meal, and go out every once in a while. And once he has that, maybe a little bit nicer place to sleep, a little bit nicer meals, and going out more often. What other people have is not important to him, therefore, in his world everyone can win.

My definition of winning pretty much requires losers. I don't understand how you can consider yourself a winner unless you are more/better/faster/stronger/etc. than someone else.

Some people have their scale of success calibrated to be absolute (my co-worker), and other have it calibrated to be relative (myself). I hypothesize that the absolutes are happy more often but the relatives have the drive to achieve a greater magnitude of success albeit less of the time, which explains why some people are happy with (relatively) little and others are unhappy even with extreme wealth.

"Ours is the first generation with the technology to enable it."

The last century was full of promises of "the n hour work week", with n much less than 40.

That's true, but I think that a serious argument can be made for the last few decades being the first point in time in humanity's recent history in which we are absolutely capable of achieving it.

There's definitely a shift going on. I suppose there has always been a shift going on - but it seems like throughout history the "shifts" have been relatively evenly spaced with regards to how they affect the "average persons" lifestyle, and what new things they enable us to do. The "shifting" going on right now, due largely to the advent of the internet, has obvious potential to radically change a lot of things about they way people live and organize.

It's become so much easier for a couple of people to start up a business doing what they like to do, and make a living off of it in the last decade that it's hard to believe - and this is almost all due to massive increases in the ability of people to communicate over large distances.

I'm young, but I really think that we may be living in a time where something closer to "utopia" for humanity (if you can ignore the cliche term) has moved, in about ten years time, from being the stuff of "nice ideals that simply won't happen" to "oh my this could actually happen, and is indeed happening in some areas".

Of course, just because we have the ability to doesn't mean we will. I would guess that as the average person becomes more aware of the sheer scale of the things we could be accomplishing that we will continue to move closer to all the failed promises and visions of the past, at an increasing rate.

To put it another way, the promises of the last century that you speak of were made by people who saw the potential of what could be done, but the advances were not enough to push the small groups ability to successfully implement things to the point where they could do so easily, or without a lot of capitol - large infrastructures, and people working 40 hours a week in said things were, at least partially, still necessary as business expanded to utilize the advances.

Now (for example) we have people paying their rent and bills by selling shirts that they silkscreen themselves in their homes, and they can sell to a global market with relative ease. A passionate individual or small group of people do not have nearly the amount of an uphill battle that they would have had even 5 years ago.

Granted, a lot of these people aren't going to be getting rich - but for a lot of people my age and younger (I'm 23), simply being able to have a roof over our heads and food in our stomachs without having to succumb to the 9 to 5 doing something that we absolutely do not care about at all (and that could probably be automated) is incentive enough.

One word: Security.

When you get married and have kids, you'll see how much more important that word becomes.

What makes you think that I'm not married and without kids? In fact, I value my free time more knowing I can spend it with my wife and daughter.

Fair enough, but many people value their next paycheck more than the free time.

You asked why we should toil away as an employee for someone else, and that's the answer. Being an entrepreneur is risky business.

In the long term, working on your own projects using the latest technologies and latest editions of popular languages, and having projects to show for it, will give you much more experience and credibility than working at a company for the same amount of time.

Over the years, I'm sure early adapters of Java, .Net, Ajax, Rails, Django, and Objective C did not have a hard time finding jobs. Companies typically try to convert existing developers to use new languages, and an employee hired for this knowledge will be an expert. A startup using the latest technologies will want to hire employees who already possess this knowledge. Finally, a user experimenting with new technologies might decide that he or she is so far ahead of companies who are still using old technology that he or she should start a business.

>In the long term, it's less risky than working

Bullshit. For every single Paul Graham there are hundreds of entrepreneurs living in abject poverty, wondering how they'll feed their kids or where they get the money to pay the mortgage.

You're taking a very small subset of extremely bright, assertive go getters and insinuating that this is the norm. It is not, and statistics show this.

Thanks for your reply. You will note that I was specifically writing about software entrepreneurs who learn and prove knowledge of the latest technologies and latest languages. They will never have a tough time finding a job if they needed to. Even before I edited and added onto my post, I mentioned that.

In my opinion, if they're broke, assuming they are software developers who use the latest technologies to create live projects they can demonstrate (and not some other kind of entrepreneur), then maybe they should "cash in" on their earned skills and work for a while.

Also, having lots of obligations requiring a steady income are needs that should be taken care of first. Everybody is in a different financial situation short term, but the fact is that if you give a startup a go, and use the latest technologies, you won't have a problem finding a job if you need to.

As to at what point a software entrepreneur should put off their ambitions and work at a related company instead for a while, that will depend on the startup and personal circumstances, so it is out of scope for my posts.

They will never have a tough time finding a job if they needed to

Talk to someone who went through the dot bomb. There was a while there where good programmers were having difficulty.

Software entrepreneurs can fail just as hard as any other entrepreneur can. It's hard work running your own business, even in software. This gets even harder and harder as you get older.

Even PG says to start young, when you don't have any massive responsibilities. The older you get, the higher your "minimum income" level goes.

Thanks for the clarification. It sounds like your example is somebody who is older, with family and kids to support, a mortgage or other startup debt to pay off, and going through the dot com bomb, as a counterpoint to my statement.

Again, it does not disprove that in the long term, somebody who is a software entrepreneur who learns the latest technologies and has visible projects they've completed, will not have a difficult time finding a job. I am not saying the salary will be huge or that you won't need to relocate, or that there won't be a bad time in the short term.

But in the long term, somebody who is competent will learn way more than they would have during the same time they would at a job, and if they have projects they can show off, they will not have trouble finding a job to pay the bills--that's the entire scope of my post.

Would it be correct to say that how entrepreneurs handle their personal and company funds are out of scope for what I said? In the long term, you will learn more from working on your own projects, and if you can demonstrate your projects, will have no problem finding a job (no more than any other person competing for the same job.)

Therefore, when competing for a job, somebody who has put to use new technologies that companies want to incorporate, and can demonstrate this, will likely do very well in the hiring process.

Also, when companies lay people off in a bad economy, it doesn't always mean that they can't afford to have that many people. They may actually want to hire experts (at a reasonable price), knowing that during a bad economy, there might be some looking for a job.

The older you get, the higher your "minimum income" level goes.

I'm 25, and my "minimum income" is ridiculous, and probably higher than most 40-year-olds'. The reason is that I live in New York. If I left New York, it would drop by a factor of 2-3, since rent is my biggest expenditure by far.

In practice, many people will be reducing their "minimum income" over the next ten years, because these financial problems are not going away any time soon.

I've also known grad students who've raised families (2-3 kids) on two student stipends. It can be done. Of course, they'll have to "sell out" and work for McKinsey in 15 years, when their kids are entering college, but that's far off in the distance.

There's much less security in working for a big company than most people think there is. Just ask any of the 760,000 people laid off so far this year.

And that's certainly the way the younger generations see it - so why not do your own thing? (Hey, I agree)

But given that most businesses require more work and eventually fail, taking a job is still much more secure. Perhaps this will change in the coming years, but not yet.

About 55% of startups fail within five years. Ok, so there's obviously some risk in starting a company.

How likely is a 22-year-old to find a job, even at a stable company, where there's a 45% or better chance that it's still worth going to work in 5 years? Not very. Most people get pigeonholed or down-tracked; not everyone can be "protege".

I'm 25 and on my fourth "career". I recognize that no single effort or job is going to deliver better than a 50% chance of liberation and success, but I have a hell of a lot of chances, and I've learned a lot and made great friends in each of my three cycles. I don't fear losing a job-- done that, bounced back-- but stagnation is terrifying.

You treat it like a foregone conclusion that sooner or later we'll all be married with children. I personally cannot think of a single logical reason for bringing another human being into this world. Sounds like an easy way to ruin a perfectly fun life.

I didn't think so either in my early to mid twenties.

I'm not saying that everyone will have kids, but this whole discussion is about generalities, and the consensus is that most people will have kids.

It doesn't get any wilder than the boomers, and more of them had kids than any other generation previously.

You should look into the Bulverism Fallacy.

You'd need to see negative TFR's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate)(http://indexmundi.com/united_states/birth_rate.html) to even suggest that most people aren't having kids.

Sometimes, the obvious is exactly that.

I jumped into the middle of this discussion, so I'm not commenting on whether the Bulverism is applicable here.

But I really wanted to thank you for pointing it out. I've recently become more aware of how easily my own thinking can get knotted up in opinions, and get distracted from the facts or the actual problem. I have a limited short-term memory, and the issue itself can get pushed out - temporarily or permanently - without me realizing it (especially when emotions engage).

Scary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

Although this is going to offend many people, I think a lot of people have kids because it is a dated decision, and people are forced to act before they are really ready to decide if it's the right path for them. The human lifespan's short, and fertility/gamete quality declines. Most people aren't economically ready to have kids until 30... but also want to make it to their grandkids' weddings, and given the reality of the human lifespan, this leaves a very short window in which the decision can be made, by people who are really too young to make it.

then what to do when your "secure" job is downsized because company can't get money because greedy criminals broke stock market and now you can't pay for your mortgage so those same people kick you out of house?

>If history teaches us anything,

If history teaches us anything, it's that economic reality changes. In the 18th century, the optimal size of the firm was small. There were many independent artisans. In the 19th and most of the 20th, industrialization occurred and firms faced increasing returns to scale. Soon, the mega-corporate-conglomerate ruled the world. Now, information technology means that even small teams can be highly productive. Billions dollar investment funds are run by 20 people.

It is not unreasonable for young people to wish for or strive for the return of the artisan age.

You'd have to know Matt to know this, but he's about as unentitled as you get. His brash confidence is the deliberate brash confidence of the WC Fields variety, not the naive sort that comes from inexperience.

Well said. The funny thing is, there's nothing about this argument unique to our generation. Both the WSJ article & Matt's response could've been written at any time in the past, and perhaps at any time in the future.

Indeed, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I don't think that's true. There's been a fundamental shift away from working one job all of your life (as our grandparents did) and being more of a free-agent that could never have been said before.

Our grandparents are just one example I don't think most people started and ended the Great Depression working for the same company. I think today's world is much closer to the historical norm of lot's of small to mid sized companies fighting it out.

> working one job all of your life (as our grandparents did)

You know, you hear this all the time that people used to work one job all their lives. But I keep my 88 year old grandmother company often and she doesn't shut up, relating extensive biographies of the family tree going way back. If anything it sounds like major career changes were more common in the past. You definitely get that impression reading about colonial America circa the revolution.

I think maybe there was a brief post-war period where it was true? William Whyte's "The Organization Man" talks about the era.

I wouldn't be surprised - there are numerous assumptions in American culture about how things have "always been" that are only really accurate from the post-WW2 era on. The GI bill led to substantially higher college enrollment, which in turn had a tremendous influence on pretty much all white-collar jobs.

The "one company for one's whole life" era lasted... significantly less than an average human lifetime. It certainly wasn't present during the Great Depression. It began in the 1950s and ended in the '80s, but even then, people were more mobile than was often said. The difference is that the ideal was to have a long, monotonically increasing career at one company-- it didn't always happen that way-- and that a person who shifted was implicitly assumed not to be successful. A major change the '80s brought about was a recognition that most people's involuntary job changes were through no fault of their own.

Well-to-do 18th-century people prized generalism and aspired to be polymaths. The professions emerged in the 19th century, but these were structured as lifelong careers, not jobs, run by individuals who would develop reputations. Corporate paternalism didn't emerge until the World War I era, when workers moved into company towns, and more services (e.g. medical care) were provided, directly or indirectly, by the employer than the community.

Well said. Wishing you wouldn't have censored yourself. I read your comment before you removed the last line. It hit home very well, imo.

Added it back. Thanks.

"... I don't have the answers, and I don't have much confidence in anything, outside of myself. That said, if I know one fact about the world, it's that very few of the self-confident 22-year-olds that I meet are going to get rich from their big brains and hard work ..."

You will gain answers with time. Your confidence will grow. But chances are if your average "self-confident 22yo" lives in a first world country they are already rich surviving the ardor an diseases of childhood, being feed enough to grow. To have the opportunity to be educated enough to read and write. All that time living in a relatively stable environment.

"... In ten years, some of you will be rich, successful and powerful. Most of you -- despite all of your hard work and independence -- won't be ... the more things change, the more they stay the same. Youth and arrogance are eternal companions ..."

I'll take that back. Probably one of the most astute things I've read this week.

You speak so much sense I wish I could give you more than +1 points.

Precious essay or not, his larger point stands: we are more on our own than our parents or grandparents. The Republican party and the ultra-conservative movement of the past 25 years has created a new wild west; it's every man for himself.

BTW this is not just for Matt's "Nintendo" generation (Y, I presume). It goes for aging generation X, as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com