Young people 'feel they have nothing to live for'
bbc.com
bbc.com
When my friend mentioned that I was just in town from SF for the weekend, she asked what I did and after telling her, her reaction was something along the lines of 'oh you're like a real grown up!' Her tone was one of embarrassment and a begrudging acceptance of where she was, and it's one I've seen a fair bit despite going to a pretty solid school. Not Ivy League, mind you, but a reasonably high-ranked state school.
I really have no idea what the solution is, but I've thought a fair bit about the as of yet unrealized ripple effects: Many of these people are in debt up to their eyeballs. Given that, they're going to be much less likely to (or at least will significantly delay) purchases of cars and real estate. Dating is a lot harder when you're living at your parents', and I'm sure we'll see an impact in the ratio of singles/families among my generation as a result. Then there's the whole psychological impact of feeling they have nothing going for them that the article focuses on. Pretty dismal scene.
[1] Honestly, I hate this term. It shouldn't be any surprise to us that when we promote an 'everyone goes to college!' culture a la 'everyone's a home owner!', coupled with an insidious lowering of standards in our education system starting in the lower rungs of K-12, we'll have a mass of college-educated individuals who can't find gainful employment.
Redistribution of wealth?
By the way, the answer is no.
It has worked great for Western European and Scandinavian countries.
Debt is a big problem, but government handouts are not a good solution to give young people the feeling that they have something to live for.
But the world is not black and white. There is a vast space between 'free for all'-capitalism and state socialism.
You can empower people by giving everyone access to good education and giving decent social security. Where 'decent' means: being able to afford housing, eat, and travel for interviews. But not so much that it makes working unattractive.
Another method for empowering people is to make it possible to make a living with an 8 hour work day by introducing a minimum wage.
By the way, TFA is about Great Britain, which by all accounts has a great social security net. And as you can read in the article, the people specifically suffer from unemployment and the resulting feeling of worthlessness.
They don't suffer from hunger, lack of housing, debt or lack of material goods.
People do also suffer from lack of housing. It is ridiculous to suggest that homelessness is mot a problem in England. Homelessness does not just include rough sleeping, but even rough sleeping is a problem in England.
People living on the street are not automatically entitled to a home.
Personal debt is also a massive problem in the UK.
Since the article is about young people there are some things you need to know: Housing Benefit is restricted for young people. The type of accommodation they can get is limited. (Young people here is "under 35" http://m.england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/housing_benefit_a... )
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/benefits_e/benefits_ch...
The minimum wage is lower for young people.
Most government help is in the form of tax rebates.
The combination of "lower taxes" and "government handouts" cUses cognitive dissonance for some people - they want lower taxation because fuck government, but they don't want lower taxation for poor people they only want it for very rich people people because SOCIALISM.
>It has worked great for Western European and Scandinavian countries.
Has it? According to a report by the UN, it would appear the median age by which half of young people have left their parental home is 26 for males and 24 for females [1].
In some areas of Western Europe, unemployment is as high as 25% [2] and is particularly affecting young people.
So could you please quantify your statement that it has worked great for Western European and Scandinavian countries?
[1]http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/expertpapers/2...
[2]http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/spain-suffer-least-...
The Western world we live in is safer in most regards than previously, whether it's food or medical or military. Ten years of war in the middle east killed only a tenth of the US soldiers killed in Vietnam, and there was no conscription. Before the downfall of the USSR, there was a very palpable fear of nuclear war in the West (justified or not) or a sizeable military invasion. Civil and social rights for minorities and women were far, far behind where they are now. In the consumer world, shit is cheaper and more disposable than ever before. Much less need to put effort into maintaining things, just get another one. Hell, even going to the dentist is far easier today with improvements in pain control. What about support services for victims of domestic abuse? Or rape? At least now there are some systems in place where people can get support sometimes (if not always) and it's a recognised problem, rather than in the boomer's youth, when it was a taboo subject and there were no services.
So sure, complain about the current situation of Gen Y folks, but when people complain about how 'easy' previous generations had it, these kinds of things are why it sounds like self-indulgent whining - because they only focus on the good things the boomers had and never recognise the bad things. Not to mention the things that the Boomers did build and give to us.
Gen Y does have hurdles to face, but those hurdles don't have to be defined in how much worse it is than previous generations had it.
Personally, for the generation Y living in the US, I feel it's worse than other Gen Y. Because of the dollar previous generations have had the benefit of exporting inflation and forcing everyone else to trade in dollars (most importantly the energy-markets). I feel the world is slowly learning to trade in it's own currency whenever they're not dealing with the US Euro/Yen/Roebel/Yuan).
Except for the past few years, the world has been constantly improving all your life; USSR, Berlin Wall, computers, internet, technology, ... In contrast, most of my adult life has been nothing but shit (objectively; things have been quite good for me, but I'm a programmer, so...): financial crisis, terrorism, low employment, home foreclosures, high tuition. It doesn't seem to be improving for the average person. Furthermore, things have turned to shit almost exactly when we became adults; when we were children, we were brought up in a time of abundance, when life was easy, and hopes for the future were high. Now, life is hard, especially for people with no homes and no jobs and no work experience, and there is nothing to look forward to, except global warming.
A lot of younger people today are incapable of making strong or hard life choices. Even something as simple as deciding to go to a trade school instead of risk a liberal arts degree. Yet these folks know going into it what sorts of options they have in terms of majors, and they have to know they're staring down the barrel of questionable employment if they pursue a less lucrative education. Yet somehow they feel they don't need to make sacrifices. The same thing goes when it comes to budgeting. Netflix? Smart phones? Starbucks? These are part of the economic floor for a lot of people of recent generations. But in many ways they are luxuries. If you are having trouble making ends meet then you need to cut some of those things. You can get buy without a smartphone, although even just going with the cheapest option (low cost smartphone w/ a prepaid plan) saves a crapton of money compared to the average. I think a lot of people have no clue how much people of previous generations went without common conveniences on a routine basis just to keep the bills paid. Boomers weren't buying starbucks every morning and dining out every day, they were packing sack lunches and drinking coffee made from a can.
That said, there are still some really shitty things that Gen Y and the millenials have to deal with that boomers didn't.
Jobs are harder to get, they don't pay as well, and the cost of living is higher. These days even entry level jobs require a ton of leg work and paper work to fill, and they usually have restrictive hours and almost invariably crappy pay. Median home prices vs. median household income has been increasing considerably since the 1970s. Considering that owning a home has typically been a multi-decadal achievement for a lot of folks that increasing ratio ends up translating directly into a great many folks denied home ownership, and the many financial benefits that come with it.
And then you look at the college situation and wonder how anyone today manages. Increasingly college education is a prerequisite for many jobs, even jobs that do not require anything other than basic literacy skills. Compared to an era when high school dropouts could easily find work and where mere high school graduates could commonly find white collar jobs as long as they had the skills, today is a much different playing field. Add to that the fact that acquiring a useful college credential usually ends up costing tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt.
All of that makes for a very tight squeeze for many folks entering the work force today.
Yeah, a lot of people today make poor choices and they whine, but make no mistake, it's a legitimately tough situation they are in.
Really? It seems to me that a much more common belief is that the living standards in the modern, developed world is on a constant, never-ending upwards trajectory; that wealthy economies will grow wealthier or at least stay at an equilibrium, and that science and technology will keep improving people's life and make them easier. And also that we will grow more tolerant and accepting of each other (see; women's rights 100 years from now compared to today, black and gays rights in the last 50 years...). The recession probably dented the belief in strong western economies, but that is relatively recent.
In that light, it would be consistent to also believe that previous generation had it harder than the younger ones do today.
It seems to me that the attitude that the younger generation is entitled and spoilt is a pretty common one, irrespective of the era - how would X survive if he grew up like me? We didn't even have Y! There has been a lot of rage against the boomers lately, at least on the Internet, but that also feels kind of recent. At least when it comes to the Internet trend, I wouldn't be surprised if that whole debacle at least partly started because of a rant against baby boomers by George Carlin, who was himself not-quite in the boomer demographic (but on the other hand, who didn't he rant against?). Prior to the complaints towards the boomer generation, I think there was a certain amount of "apologies for my generation" sentiment going on. But again, that is also just an Internet-thing; I don't know about other avenues of information.
This is compounded by the republican ideology of transferring risks from the state to the individual. My alma mater cost $3.2k/year in tuition in the late 90s, and now costs $9.4k/year (numbers not inflation adjusted). According to the cpi inflation calculator, tuition has roughly doubled [1]. But that's not all -- course loads are now heavy enough that it can be very difficult to get required classes when needed, and because of sequencing requirements for your major classes it's very easy to accidentally get stuck for an extra 1-2 semesters because you couldn't get the course you needed because of reduced course offerings. Assuming you spend $10/year for books + living expenses, leaving college with ~$40k in debt is significant.
I don't know if it would work for everyone, but it is worth a shot and can't hurt to just have that stored away when you appeal to your university.
I ended up with around 80k in loans, but I was dumb about my living expenses (I went to college in my late 20s, and had a certain living standard I wanted to maintain, which was a mistake).
When I had my exit interview, the financial aid counselor asked if I knew how much I had borrowed. I told her what I knew it to be. She laughed and said that I was probably wrong as most students have no idea how much debt they have accrued.
I asked her to recheck the paperwork because I had been keeping record of how much I borrowed and only borrowed the minimum that I was eligible for throughout my college career. When she looked at my file, she made an embarrassed apology and said that she must have confused me with someone else and that her experience was that most students didn't know their full debt burden.
My wife and I paid it off in five years. We were lucky, though. We were married in our last year of school and were used to living with few luxuries. We decided to keep living as simply even though we were lucky enough to both get jobs not long after graduating. We read all the requirements and prepayment guidelines and followed them to the letter which helped knock the time down tremendously. When we got within a couple thousand, my in-laws paid off the rest with a no-interest loan that they made to us.
Not everyone has those circumstances, I know, but the biggest realization was if we would be okay with living well below our means for a few years, we would be better off in the end. I have friends that I think are still paying off loans due to deferments, unemployment, and amount they received.
The quoted portion should be a surprise. Several generations ago, we decided to promote an "everyone goes to grade school" culture, and it led to a vast expansion of our economy and middle class in the western world. Our current situation sounds predictable, but it was not. It was reasonable to predict that an educated workforce would provide more capable brains to fulfill new and existing needs with goods and services.
I think the core cause is the belief that college was the cause of success, when it was really more of a gatekeeper of success. Now that the gate is wide open to a large fraction of society, you need either connections or hard skills. I can forgive past policymakers for that oversight. I can't forgive current policymakers for perpetuating it.
The most popular major at my state's most popular university this year was psychology. Many—if not most—of those degrees will never be put to use.
Can you imagine what it is like to live in a country where that friend of a friend of yours is the _average_ young person?
To answer that rethorical question, let me just point out that we won't have heared the last of the crisis in Southern Europe.
I recently bought a flat with intention to rent. It stands empty for many months so far because I can't find time to finish renovating it. It can stand empty because it's dirt cheap to leave it like that. I'm earning enough too keep it empty for another month in less than a day. As it stands empty somebody has no place to live in and has to pay rent elevated by the fact people like me are perfectly safe to hoard property.
One of the "problems" in the UK rental market is that the Duke of Westminster is one of Britain's most propertied landlord.
And then you read things like this :
> A Freedom of Information request by the New Statesman to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) reveals that the largest landowners received millions of pounds in taxpayer subsidy last year. The Duke of Westminster, a multibillionaire, was paid £748,716 for his ownership of Grosvenor Farms, the Earl of Plymouth £675,085, the Duke of Buccleuch £260,273, the Duke of Devonshire £251,729 and the Duke of Atholl £231,188 for his Blair Castle estate. It was also a lucrative year for the Windsors. The Queen received £415,817 for the Royal Farms and £314,811 for the Duchy of Lancaster, while Prince Charles was paid £127,868 for the Duchy of Cornwall. Similarly well-remunerated was Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who received £273,905 for his 2,000-acre Glympton Estate in Oxfordshire, allegedly purchased with proceeds of the 1985 al-Yamamah arms deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia. The largest individual UK beneficiary is Sir Richard Sutton, who was paid £1.7m for his Settled Estates, the 6,500-acre property near Newbury that he inherited with his baronetcy in 1981, despite net assets of £136.5m.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/09/how-we...
I specifically avoid words like "science", "engineering", or "entrepreneurship" because I do not want to be dragged into a debate about why artists and writers are needed, too. They are needed, too. But I prefer the word "builders" — people, who are taught that value comes from building, and that is something you can always do yourself. You do not need a "job" with someone telling you what and how to build.
Note that there is an attitude problem in many young unemployed people: many seem to think that getting some kind of education entitles them to something. What's worse, if that "something" (job, money) doesn't appear, many are helpless and turn into a spiral of self-loathing and depression.
In the longer term this will become even more of a problem, as we automate more and more mundane tasks. The number of jobs that require no thinking will not grow. On the other hand, the possibilities for making a living using all kinds of building skills are growing fast.
I believe we should make more effort to teach kids to build, and use their own initiative. And I use the word "build" very loosely — you can build furniture, electronics gadgets, web sites, artsy jewelry, anything. Whatever you build will help your self-esteem, put thoughts on the right track (growing/extending/building rather than self-loathing, moving up rather than down), help you meet new people, give you new possibilities.
Thinking about your ability to find job in bad economy after you take all that debt on you does not strikes me as excessively risk averse. The opposite strikes me as irresponsible.
And punishment for not finding job and being unemployed for months is hard. There is a big difference between "I send application and a job with benefits is found in a month" and "it will take a lot of time and may end up as long term unemployed". America is not exactly nice to those who failed and even yours kids will have it hard to impossible to get better life if you fail.
We have the idea that 18-19 old should be worry free because we graduated into exceptionally good market and economy. We were privileged so to speak. If you look at history, non-priviledged non-rich adults did not used to have worry-free-do-not-care about income periods in their lives.
There is middle ground between and afraid of everything. And I agree that some people tend to be on paranoid side, especially when it comes to physical risks or anything that resembles terrorism.
However, decisions that make or break your earning and quality of life for next dozens years are not the best place to start with risking.
Keep in mind, he's not planning in making a career out of it or becoming an officer or anything like that. But he did get his life turned around for the better, even though he didn't take the safe route early on.
That's because you only started cooking at 15/16. If you had to be responsible at 12, you would be very very adult by the time you reach 17.
Obvious ones are - 1) bring decent, sustainable standard of living to everyone in the world, 2) colonise space.
I'd quite like 3) understand all laws of physics, and 4) understand how the mind works, but they feel harder to get the whole of society behind.
Lots of marketing and populism chops needed, to sell missions at that level to society in general.
And yet there are so many problems in the world and people don't feel they can make a difference. The analogy that jumps to mind is that society is similar to a car. In the 70's cars could be fixed by someone with a manual and common sense. Now they are so complicated you need special equipment, knowledge and money to even start figuring out what's wrong.
Regardless of my bad analogy young people seem feel powerless to change anything at any level in their lives.
That was hard to read and it is very serious stuff. Some might take a derisive, cynical approach that "Well in so many countries people have to much worse and how do these people from a first world country think that way". But it is important to note that human experience is unique the pain one experiences is often relative to their environment and their expectations.
Someone I knew was very successful and made millions of dollars (tens or so). And then his accountant stole probably half of it and disappeared. Well this acquaintance had contemplated suicide. And when word got out, many friends and acquaintances were laughing at him. "He still had all this great wealth and there he was ready to take his own life." But, the pain he was experiencing, was real to him. And he was ready to take that step. The wisdom to understand (maybe not agree with it, but at least to understand) comes a bit later in life.
http://pastie.org/pastes/9180833/text?key=uuqxmp5nxexuszswum...
If you don't have a phone (or even if you do), feel free to message me if you'd like to talk to someone in the startup/tech community who's also worked as a crisis counselor. Contact info's in my HN profile.
I spend a lot of time thinking about how I can reconcile my software skills with lofty goals of a more just society, but it's pretty tough. I think it was the piratebay founder that said it was impossible.
In any case, yesteryear dreams like "starting a prosperous household" seem not only unattainable, but hollow as well, in 2014. It's definitely weird being a young adult these days.
ps. lmao @ "we don't have real problems". I guess massive underemployment, environmental wreckage, domestic espionage, corporate wage fixing, increasingly sophisticated advertising, etc. are all just a blip on the radar compared to the fights of old boys. It's just not as romantic as it used to be, it's the inter-generational equivalent to "poor people have refrigerators".
I think that referred to concrete problems that concern the individual and can be solved by work. You need food to live. So people farm. People need houses. So people build houses. That sort of stuff.
Yes, we have lots of problems now. But you can't grab a hammer and nails and build a solution to massive underemployment while earning a living for it.
Food and houses on the other hand, at least in the western world, are more or less solved. You don't need to build a house and a farm. You just need fing money to get a house.
IMO You really can't underestimate the importance of that last one, the property bubble.
In the past young people could strive towards buying their own place, starting a family, climbing the ladder, but that's so far out of reach nowadays that many people can't even hope to play that game. One of the big drivers in many people's lives has been pulled out of reach.
It can all feel like a treadmill even if you're in a good job so I can see how young people who aren't working in a hot industry such as tech in a major city to feel this way.
A friend from my last office wants to buy a home. He has essentially a guarantee of lifelong employment, with a salary that today equates to something around 3000€/month pre-tax. He wants to own a small house in the neighborhood where he's renting now. But he's searching for a few years now, as he doesn't want to pay a million for it. Yup, 27.7 years of pre-tax salary for a small house. And mind you, this is not even a capital city.
I feel like the answer to this conundrum -- and in general the long term trend of job obviation -- is to decouple an individual's worth from their economic value.
But what would a world without work look like? I can imagine it being heaven or hell.
Its something we better start getting ready for because technology gets rid of far more jobs than it creates and will only continue to do so for the forseeable future.
Eventually only super highly skilled and creative jobs (writing, art etc) that can't be handled by robot/android/humanoids will be left to do and we'll have to figure out how to allot a basic living wage to people with increments to that coming based on ... specious things like their popularity ... maybe? (I shudder to imagine this)
What about being allocated money based on your positive (and negative) contributions to society? You currently can earn millions doing absolutely nothing useful ripping people off in wall st or earn pennies devoting your life to helping others
That vision was sold to us in the 70's, but despite the technological advancement, we are all working a lot more.
the ones who have jobs ...
that is not surprising. In a society where ones identity is tied to ones job as tightly as it is in the US, its not surprising that as the job market shrinks, the people with jobs will tend to work harder and harder to justify having said jobs.
And when i talk about this scenario, I'm not talking about 10 20 or even 30 years. I'm talking 100, maybe 150 years from now that this becomes a reality.
So I'd answer your question with no, they have not been defined by their work because life was too horrible. Needless to say that it doesn't follow that we _should_ let ourselves be definded by our work.
A friend of mine works in occupational therapy, and part of what they do is deal with this issue in getting people back to work. It's called "work hardening".
I'm pushing 40 and have older siblings in their 50s. Only one of them went to college right out of high school (more went later on when they could afford to pay for it) and the others joined the military to get a start in the world. All of my siblings -- minus the one under lifetime treatment for depression -- are successful today. They all have fulfilling careers and healthy families. None of them had it easy.
My parents (begrudgingly) paid for (most of) my college. There was quite of bit of resentment in my family as I had grown up assuming that I would go to college and someone would pay for it, a fairly common belief at the time, at least among my peers. After changing majors a couple of times my parents told me I was on my own. I was angry at first and then I started a small business with some friends, worked hard and finished.
After college I moved to another country and worked hard to get a career-path job. After that I worked hard starting my own company in that field. Apart from the degree my parents helped pay for I did it all on my own steam. Those decisions I made -- finishing school, moving to another country, quitting a job to start a company -- those were the ones that defined my life and paved the way for the things that I enjoy today. (I'm not suggesting I've arrived anywhere, just that I've acquired the tools to live a fulfilling life.)
Whenever I meet young people (and by young I mean just out of college) I'm sometimes very impressed though I'm often shocked at how much they expect from the world. The impressive ones seem to get it and are working hard either on their own businesses or taking the most aggressive route through graduate school somewhere interesting -- doing what it takes to carve out a niche. The ones that don't impress me think that getting a degree (or even not getting one) means they're going to have a comfortable life, free of hardship.
It's not just young people though. I see a lot of people my age who cynically pick up a paycheck every month in a field they're not passionate about, that they're not truly invested in. Then they completely fall apart because they "got downsized" and they go frantic on FB looking for a lifeline. These are the same people at different stages in life. If you're willing to dig in and make your own way then you might get what you want out of life. If not then don't be surprised when life goes sideways.
Furthermore, my generation (20-somethings) grew up in boom years, when everything was improving and there was a very bright light at the end of the tunnel, but when we actually reached adulthood, everything turned to shit and many of my friends can't even get a bad job (I'm lucky, as I'm a programmer). No wonder half of the young population is suicidal, and the other half apathetic, we were raised with high expectations and then reality hit everyone without a warning, it fucked up many people's emotions.
My college cost $16k per year plus living expenses. It's a long story why I was going there as opposed to a cheaper state school. My parents did pay for part of it though I had to take out $20k+ in student loans and pay for the last year or so outright.
> from poorer backgrounds
I'm from a military family, lower middle class.
> It is in no way their fault for not achieving "greateness"
I haven't personally and that really wasn't what I was suggesting.
> Furthermore, my generation (20-somethings) grew up in boom years
I was in college in the 90s, boom years. Things went to shit a year after I was out.
> we have the biggest financial crisis in the past 80 years
While the current economy might be as bad as the Great Depression by some measure, you are not living through the Great Depression.
[Edited for clarity and civility]
Also, things started improving a few years after that, and the next 4 years were awesome. This crisis has been going on for 7 years.
Unemployed young people really have very little to hope for. When the economy improves, noone is going to hire a 32-year old who's hardly been employed in the past 6 years. They are going to hire the fresh 24-year-old who's just finished college. The first paycheck/job you get greatly influences the overall wealth you're going to earn over your life.
Bullshit. My first post-college job paid $550 per month. Deciding that this wasn't the best way to live my life I networked until I found a lead and then chased a CEO for two months by calling him 2-3 times a week until I got a job. And that was just the beginning, not some magical doorway into success.
> When the economy improves
That's a very dangerous assumption.
Things weren't easier 20 years ago (when I started work) - different yes but not easier.
I see people applying for 100s of jobs without even an interview. Posts with 500 applicants. Yet I have SME clients who have numerous hidden jobs which remain unfilled because nobody at the company is prepared to go through the recruitment process. These jobs are there but it takes a little more to open the door.
1) Education has become much more expensive than just 10 years ago - you typically leave college with anywhere upto ~50K in debt
2) The Economy has changed - companies are making do with fewer people despite huge demand - (basically a jobless recovery)
3) Asinine trend of "you need to have a job to get a job" - basically some one already employed has 2-3 job offers but some one starting out has no one willing to take a risk on them
4) Some narrow sectors are indeed booming but most are locked out of them
This one is particularly relevant. It's literally impossible to get your foot in the door these days. I've had three separate tech companies string me along through multiple rounds of interviews, simply to say that the position was axed due to them requiring someone with more "experience", or funding was cut for the position due to the abysmal state of the economy. To be clear I wasn't even properly rejected (that's much easier to deal with), the positions were literally withdrawn.
Among my group of friends I'm the lucky one to even land interviews. Most of them are severely underemployed, or unemployed.
In three years I have gone from unemployment with zero experience and pay in engineering to £21k per annum. I did this by doing part-time courses in Autocad and then the same in Manufacturing Engineering, doing a year of minimum wage to pay for the first year of courses.
But I share the fears and doubts of the poorly skilled individuals. With no experience of the workplace or what it takes to be a decent employee that gets somewhere.
Being unemployed is depressing and you have to be mentally strong to survive it. Making chances for yourself is much easier said than done.
I've seen this in action. The jobs these kids got were from people who got fired in order to make room for them. As a company getting paid to have someone perform work for you is real nice. But it does not CREATE jobs.
In order to pay for all these things our sales-tax rate was pumped up to an all new high 21%...
Step two: Discover you actually hate all professions associated with your qualifications, or that your qualifications are useless in the job market and your career goals were utterly unrealistic
Step three: Mooch at home unwilling to retrain or do something menial, or with no relevance to your skill set to tide you over whilst you find something better
Step four, establish your new NEET identity and blame society, everyone and everything but yourself for your circumstance and the lack of a suitable high paying job served on a platter
I say this as someone that hasn't completed any education beyond GCSE level (I guess that's college in the US), and has never had any trouble finding paid work several within 10 days and something that I want to do within 60 days of that. I've worked throughout Europe, the UK and Southern Africa.
Apologies for the lack of empathy here, but it really isn't that hard. Just be prepared to go anywhere and do anything
I'd say that's high-school for the US.
Your attitude of go anywhere, do anything, may have worked very well for you but it's not actually possible for many people.
Why? I find it no less true today than a decade ago.
After all without the financial means and independence how can you care and provide for anyone let alone yourself?
In my own context, sure - at least initially I had only myself to care about, so I won't argue that :)
And again, doing something like this on an individual level is easy, because the status quo doesn't change overall. But on a demographic level, where are all the unemployed people going to move to? Another country? That other country also has unemployed people.
Similarly, if you don't have skills in demand by employers, you're hard to hire, and hence hard to get more skills valued by employers - moving to a new location simply moves you to a new pool of unskilled labour.
That did lead to losing touch with almost all my school-era friends at least initially - though in some ways it also taught me who were the best friends amongst them :) They're the ones you meet after a decade apart and can pretty much pick up where you left off.
"Pampered youth refuse to get hands dirty faced with lack of high paying jobs-on-a-platter matching poorly thought out career choices"
It's not hard at the individual level, but it is hard at the demographic level, if the jobs en masse aren't there. More people can start businesses, sure, but it's a complex picture that's not so easy to explain away.
(obviously this isn't completely true, but the financial industry is even bigger as a percentage of exports in the UK than it is in the US, although nowhere near Liechtenstein levels)
Or the economy hollowing out and immigration amplifying the problem. They're certainly not mutually exclusive.
Importantly, taking unemployment overall conceals that fact that certain portions of the workforce (i.e. the young and low paid) are disproportionately affected by a rapid influx of young tradesmen and low-skilled workers.
Establishment EU politicians seem to generally support immigration, which makes sense if one's objective is to lower the cost of labour for business (and weaken the power of unions).
On the other side, lost jobs are lost because there's no more need for them. One robot caused one thousand of unemployed factory workers, and the need for this kind of jobs is not going to increase anymore.
Or are you trying to say that lowly skilled workers from closed factories would somehow successfully fill roles in finance or technology, but there are only immigrants staying in their way.
Lots of immigrants work service/retail jobs that aren't possible to fill overseas.
>On the other side, lost jobs are lost because there's no more need for them. One robot caused one thousand of unemployed factory workers, and the need for this kind of jobs is not going to increase anymore.
Yup.
>Or are you trying to say that lowly skilled workers from closed factories would somehow successfully fill roles in finance or technology, but there are only immigrants staying in their way.
What I'm saying is that a bigger labour pool increases competition for existing jobs and high rates of immigration makes this worse. Supply and demand.
I don't have a solution but then again most of these young people are far better off than the generation before them so maybe they should stop being so gloomy. Most of them have pretty much free access to all of life's necessities and they are going to live longer than any generation before them.
On the other hand, feeling that global market forces and dynamics should just turn around and succumb to your desire for a job just so you won't be depressed seems quite silly to me.
Which generation are you thinking of? That doesn't ring true. Things started going sideways for my generation (generation X) and then globalization happened and now automation is happening. Tech has made things better for a small subset of workers, but not everyone is suited to tech work. Globalization and automation are significant changes.
Sure, you can throw lots of police at demonstrators, but for one there will be more and more people who no longer can afford to buy your iPhones, and secondly, at some point it might get really ugly.
I am blessed to live in a safe place and earn a lot of money. But I do feel we need to put a part of it aside for direct help of the unemployed folks, especially the young, and for programs to tackle these problems.
And if we don't it will could turn out to be a bad century. For all of us.
[1] I speculate they are exploiting the egoism that's in all of us for their campaigns.
[2] If you don't think there are any, think about how much about your own life is the result of chance, and how it easily might be the other way round. For example you being a poor immigrant in a foreign country.
...This, this was important, a moment where the life we once knew stopped existing, and a group of students, in a class room that looked like and abandoned building, realized it, all 60 of us at the same time.
We understood it the same way a kid understands photosynthesis: Because a teacher coldly explained it to us, even used graphics… It happened 4 years ago, almost a year after the December 2001 crisis. It was a social studies class and this teacher, don’t remember if it was a he or a she, was explaining the different kinds of social pyramids. We even had a text book with those darn, cruel pyramids! The first pyramid explained the basic society. A pyramid with two horizontal lines, dividing those on top (high social class) those in the middle (middle class) and the bottom of the pyramid (the poor, proletarian). The teacher explained that the middle of the pyramid, the middle class, acted as a cushion between the rich and the poor, taking care of the social stress.
The second pyramid had a big middle section, this was the pyramid that represents 1st world countries. One where the bottom is very thin and arrows show that there is a possibility to go from low to middle class, and from middle to the top of the social pyramid. Our teacher explained that this was the classic, democratic capitalist society, and that on countries such as Europeans one, socialists, the pyramid was very similar but a little more flat, meaning that here is a big middle section, middle class, and small high and low class. There is little difference between the three of them. The third pyramid showed the communist society. Where arrows from the low and middle class tried to reach the top but they bounced off the line. A small high society and one big low society, cushioned by a minimal middle class section of pyramid. Then we turned the page and saw the darned fourth pyramid. This one had arrows from the middle class dropping to the low, poor class. “What is this?” Some of us asked.
The teacher looked at us. “This is us” “It’s the collapsed country, a country that turns into 3rd world country like in pyramid five where there is almost no middle class to speak, one huge low, poor class , and a very small, very rich, top class.” “What are those arrows that go from the middle to the bottom of the pyramid?” Someone asked. You could hear a pin drop. “That is middle class turning into poor”.
I won’t lie, no one cried, though people rubbed their faces, held their heads and their breath. No one cried, but we all knew at that very moment that all we thought, all we took for granted, simply was not going to happen. “You see, the income from the middle class is not enough to function as middle class any more. Some from the top class fall to middle class, but the vast majority of the middle class turns into poor” Said the teacher.
I don’t know how many people in that room suddenly understood that he/she was poor. The teacher continued “You see, we have a middle class that suddenly turns to poor, creating a society of basically poor people, there is no more middle class to cushion tensions any more. Middle class suddenly discovers that they are overqualified for the jobs they can find and have to settle for anything they can obtain, therefore unemployment sky rockets: too much to offer, too little demand. You see they prepare, study for a job they are not going to get. You kids, you are studying Architecture because you simply wish to do so. Only 3 or 4 percent of you will actually find a job related to architecture.”
We all sat there, letting it all sink in. After a few months, it all proved to be true. Even the amount of students that dropped out of college increased to at least 50%. They either so no point in studying something that would not make much of a difference in their future salaries, had no money to keep themselves in college, or simply had to drop college to work and support their families.
(Edit: spelling)
Maybe this realization is just quicker? Maybe this also means a higher ratio of people are happy because they embraced emptyness?
And living in a certain way fills them. Not necessarily intentionally or to our benefit.
Some music is beautiful to me, some acts are pleasurable, some pictures and stories resonate. Maybe they're empty when taken objectively, but I don't see how that constitutes an answer to the poverty of subjective beings.
We mostly seem to have things that, based on our histories and to some extent our biology, we've learned to draw pleasure or pain from. And that learning does not seem like it can easily be altered in a well designed manner. If it could, psychology would be a vastly simpler undertaking:
"I'm depressed and I can't afford to do much more than eat."
"Don't worry, switch over to the Nihilism 2.0 release and then patch it with Existentialism 3.1"
;)
Of course the people hardest hit are those at the bottom of the income chart - the young. At the same time, the cost of living has rocketed as a result of the mishandling of the banking sector, resulting in a housing boom (that from a political perspective cannot be permitted now to be undone and has been subsequently propped up by a heavily indebted the government). Again the worst off have been non-homeowners (i.e. the young).
It's impossible to blame the current administration for all of it, you have to blame the entire political establishment (all 3 main parties have been in power within the last 15 years). Their worldview has to be questioned. Significant errors of judgement have been made repeatedly over the last 15 years - Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria (no action taken by a hairs breadth even after everything that had come before), the banking crisis, handling of the educational system (including higher education), rapidly opening borders to former eastern-bloc countries, limitless spying on UK citizens, no reform of an undemocratic (not elected, but "appointed") European Commission, and migration of law making powers to the EU without consultation and assent by the public (through referendum).
Then, there's Germany. The only country in Europe where young people have relatively no problems with getting a job. Why? Germans keep their job market closed, so that's seems like an easy answer. Yet, France and some others did the same, and it didn't help. And surely, Germany is significantly stronger economically that the rest. However, they too had a period of high youth unemployment rates. So that isn't it either. However, in exactly that period they introduced Nationaler Pakt für. Ausbildung und Fachkräftenachwuchs (Vocational and Educational Training Pact) - a solution that allows young people to simultaneously work and study. It's not a system with no flaws, but it worked. Source: http://www.worldcrunch.com/opinion-analysis/how-germany-beat...
Your discussion regarding the situation in France and Germany is pertinent but widens the discussion beyond my narrow point.
Supply and demand is econ 101. If the supply of low wage labour goes through the roof, then wages are compressed for a section of the population (the young and low paid) that can ill deal with the effects.
Now you you might say, "well, we have the minimum wage in the UK" - but there are all kinds of tricks employers will use to circumvent this, and with high supply, they can more easily get away with this type of behavior. Finally, the minimum wage, is not actually a liveable wage for an independent adult in the UK in 2014 (despite protestations, I'm sure), and so offers little in the way of protection anyway.