All grown up with no place to go
Mar. 18th, 2005 08:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vovatI found this article on the journal of someone in the ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
discworld community. I didn't think the article was written all that well, and it was a bit too concerned with labels ("Twixter" sounds to me like someone who eats a lot of cookie-filled candy bars), but it had some good points. I think the stuff about college degrees not being worth much nowadays is largely true, as was the point that "people in their late teens and early 20s don't make as much as they used to." The eighth paragraph presents arguments from people who think that the mid-twenties provide "a chance for young people to savor the pleasures of irresponsibility, search their souls and choose their life paths," as well as those who think that "society no longer provides young people with the moral backbone and the financial wherewithal to take their rightful places in the adult world." I agree more with the latter. I don't think it's so much that people my age don't WANT to move out of our parents' houses, so much as that it's difficult.
I don't know how much I fit the stereotype that the article describes. At first glance, it might seem like I do, since I have college degrees, yet I live with my mom, am unmarried, and only work part-time. On the other hand, the description of "full-grown men and women who still live with their parents, who dress and talk and party as they did in their teens, hopping from job to job and date to date, having fun but seemingly going nowhere" doesn't exactly fit me. I suppose I technically do "party as [I] did in my teens," which is to say not at all. I'm not much for "hopping from job to job and date to date," though. I HAVE worked and quit several part-time jobs, but, after graduating from library school, I've kept the only jobs I could get in libraries. I'm not searching for a career; rather, I'm trying to find a job IN my chosen career. I guess it's possible that I'll need to change my chosen career at some point in the future, but I haven't totally given up yet. And I've only ever dated one person. So, I don't know. I think the stereotype is that people my age don't really take their jobs and relationships seriously, and I don't really feel that way.
After reading this article, I was thinking about the job market, and I tend to think that, not only are more people unemployed and/or underemployed today, but workers in general are being treated worse than ever. The article mentions that "[t]he stable, quasi-parental bond between employer and employee is a thing of the past, and neither feels much obligation to make the relationship permanent," and I think that's largely true. I'm somewhat inclined to think that, if people really do job-hop more often than they used to (I really don't know if this is actually true), it's partially because employers are likely to fire anyone for no real reason. If there's no job security, it's hard to really have a career as such. I don't know any specific statistics, but it just seems to me like we've really been moving away from workers' rights as of late. I mean, I remember learning in history class about the rise of labor unions, New Deal job creation, and stuff like that. Then, in the later part of the twentieth century, we had deregulation, downsizing, companies moving jobs overseas (okay, I'm sure that one's not that new, but I get the impression that it's been on the rise), and all kinds of other ways for corporations to gain power, while individual workers lose out. It's largely a return to the ultimately ineffective laissez-faire capitalism that dominated in the country prior to the Great Depression. My basic thought on that kind of thing is that, since there wouldn't BE any corporations if there weren't people working there, the workers should be a higher priority. It's the same way with trying to maximize values for the stockholders. Stockholders need money to buy stocks, and, if they don't have jobs, they're less likely to speculate in the market. That is, of course, unless they're independently wealthy. I guess it once again comes down to the rich screwing over the not-so-rich, doesn't it?
I think the section about marriage comes across as being a bit biased, implying that people who marry later in life do so because of self-involvement, career, dating around, etc. This is probably true for some people, but I think there are some economic factors at work here, too. I mean, if you can't even afford a place for two people to live together, what's the point in getting married? Of course, I think marriage is kind of an outmoded institution anyway. Why should a long-term (and hopefully lifelong) relationship involve giving a preacher or judge some money, and having them give you a certificate? It's sort of a throwback to a time when the churches had a lot more power. You know, the same basic time period as that in which excommunication was considered a horrible punishment. I might get married someday, because, while I don't think it's necessary, I also think it's kind of a nice idea. Institutions aren't always bad. It's pretty much all symbolic at this point, though, aside from the tax breaks, which I kind of think don't really make sense now anyway. I don't want kids at all, but I guess I could always change my mind on that point.
The "Twixter Culture" section of the article says, "Marketers have picked up on the fact that twixters on their personal voyages of discovery tend to buy lots of stuff along the way." This is largely true, but I think one important point that the paragraph doesn't mention is the idea that getting stuff can represent an escape from reality. It certainly does for me. In fact, I think that, in buying a new book or video game, I'm trying to escape from TWO realities. The first is the economic reality, in which the little money I make would probably be better off put into savings for the future. The second is that the worlds I can visit through such media are much more fun than the real world. The idea that only rich people deserve escapist entertainment has never sat too well with me. (And, since it relates to both forms of escapism, I suppose I'll mention that L. Frank Baum lived well beyond his means. {g})
So, yeah. I guess that's all I have to say about that, as Forrest Gump would put it.
discworld community. I didn't think the article was written all that well, and it was a bit too concerned with labels ("Twixter" sounds to me like someone who eats a lot of cookie-filled candy bars), but it had some good points. I think the stuff about college degrees not being worth much nowadays is largely true, as was the point that "people in their late teens and early 20s don't make as much as they used to." The eighth paragraph presents arguments from people who think that the mid-twenties provide "a chance for young people to savor the pleasures of irresponsibility, search their souls and choose their life paths," as well as those who think that "society no longer provides young people with the moral backbone and the financial wherewithal to take their rightful places in the adult world." I agree more with the latter. I don't think it's so much that people my age don't WANT to move out of our parents' houses, so much as that it's difficult.I don't know how much I fit the stereotype that the article describes. At first glance, it might seem like I do, since I have college degrees, yet I live with my mom, am unmarried, and only work part-time. On the other hand, the description of "full-grown men and women who still live with their parents, who dress and talk and party as they did in their teens, hopping from job to job and date to date, having fun but seemingly going nowhere" doesn't exactly fit me. I suppose I technically do "party as [I] did in my teens," which is to say not at all. I'm not much for "hopping from job to job and date to date," though. I HAVE worked and quit several part-time jobs, but, after graduating from library school, I've kept the only jobs I could get in libraries. I'm not searching for a career; rather, I'm trying to find a job IN my chosen career. I guess it's possible that I'll need to change my chosen career at some point in the future, but I haven't totally given up yet. And I've only ever dated one person. So, I don't know. I think the stereotype is that people my age don't really take their jobs and relationships seriously, and I don't really feel that way.
After reading this article, I was thinking about the job market, and I tend to think that, not only are more people unemployed and/or underemployed today, but workers in general are being treated worse than ever. The article mentions that "[t]he stable, quasi-parental bond between employer and employee is a thing of the past, and neither feels much obligation to make the relationship permanent," and I think that's largely true. I'm somewhat inclined to think that, if people really do job-hop more often than they used to (I really don't know if this is actually true), it's partially because employers are likely to fire anyone for no real reason. If there's no job security, it's hard to really have a career as such. I don't know any specific statistics, but it just seems to me like we've really been moving away from workers' rights as of late. I mean, I remember learning in history class about the rise of labor unions, New Deal job creation, and stuff like that. Then, in the later part of the twentieth century, we had deregulation, downsizing, companies moving jobs overseas (okay, I'm sure that one's not that new, but I get the impression that it's been on the rise), and all kinds of other ways for corporations to gain power, while individual workers lose out. It's largely a return to the ultimately ineffective laissez-faire capitalism that dominated in the country prior to the Great Depression. My basic thought on that kind of thing is that, since there wouldn't BE any corporations if there weren't people working there, the workers should be a higher priority. It's the same way with trying to maximize values for the stockholders. Stockholders need money to buy stocks, and, if they don't have jobs, they're less likely to speculate in the market. That is, of course, unless they're independently wealthy. I guess it once again comes down to the rich screwing over the not-so-rich, doesn't it?
I think the section about marriage comes across as being a bit biased, implying that people who marry later in life do so because of self-involvement, career, dating around, etc. This is probably true for some people, but I think there are some economic factors at work here, too. I mean, if you can't even afford a place for two people to live together, what's the point in getting married? Of course, I think marriage is kind of an outmoded institution anyway. Why should a long-term (and hopefully lifelong) relationship involve giving a preacher or judge some money, and having them give you a certificate? It's sort of a throwback to a time when the churches had a lot more power. You know, the same basic time period as that in which excommunication was considered a horrible punishment. I might get married someday, because, while I don't think it's necessary, I also think it's kind of a nice idea. Institutions aren't always bad. It's pretty much all symbolic at this point, though, aside from the tax breaks, which I kind of think don't really make sense now anyway. I don't want kids at all, but I guess I could always change my mind on that point.
The "Twixter Culture" section of the article says, "Marketers have picked up on the fact that twixters on their personal voyages of discovery tend to buy lots of stuff along the way." This is largely true, but I think one important point that the paragraph doesn't mention is the idea that getting stuff can represent an escape from reality. It certainly does for me. In fact, I think that, in buying a new book or video game, I'm trying to escape from TWO realities. The first is the economic reality, in which the little money I make would probably be better off put into savings for the future. The second is that the worlds I can visit through such media are much more fun than the real world. The idea that only rich people deserve escapist entertainment has never sat too well with me. (And, since it relates to both forms of escapism, I suppose I'll mention that L. Frank Baum lived well beyond his means. {g})
So, yeah. I guess that's all I have to say about that, as Forrest Gump would put it.
