The Doomed Generation

[rousseau]

They have no way to save, no way to buy a house, no way to start a family. It's physically impossible, not just hard, but impossible without taking massive financial risks. This is what I'm getting at. Unfortunately I used the word population.

You lament that immigration is required for population growth, and regret using the word population?
Personally I wonder why population growth is still considered a good thing.
If there were more houses than people, houses would be very affordable. With a growing population and a decades-long failure to build affordable housing, what you see is what you get. These things are not disconnected.

Housing is just a part of it, a reasonably big part of it, but just a part. In practice it's every economic factor that's in play: cost of tuition, vehicles, housing, stagnant wages, pensions disappearing, inflation, precarious work. Unless the parents have money kids being born today are going to have a hard time.

I think (I’m no economist) ALL those matters would be less of an issue without population pressures.

Likely also true, although I can imagine that the situation is far more complex than I can comprehend.

The current situation in Canada is that baby boomers need health care and are all retiring, while there aren't enough ranks coming in from behind to replace them and care for these people. That's why we put such an emphasis on immigration. But the Liberals screwed it up and let in too many people creating unneeded pressure on housing and the economy. We also have a shortage of construction workers to build homes.

I can't pretend to have wrapped my head around all the logic, but it would seem that the government didn't want to let our population deflate.

 

[bilby]

They have no way to save, no way to buy a house, no way to start a family. It's physically impossible, not just hard, but impossible without taking massive financial risks. This is what I'm getting at. Unfortunately I used the word population.

You lament that immigration is required for population growth, and regret using the word population?
Personally I wonder why population growth is still considered a good thing.
If there were more houses than people, houses would be very affordable. With a growing population and a decades-long failure to build affordable housing, what you see is what you get. These things are not disconnected.

Housing is just a part of it, a reasonably big part of it, but just a part. In practice it's every economic factor that's in play: cost of tuition, vehicles, housing, stagnant wages, pensions disappearing, inflation, precarious work. Unless the parents have money kids being born today are going to have a hard time.

That's literally been true for all of human history.

For most of that history, most parents couldn't even dream of themselves or their children having tuition, a vehicle, housing (except a miserable shack provided by their landlord who was also their sole option as employer), wage increases, or any kind of pension. Inflation is a symptom of the existence of wage increases as a general expectation, and as such is a good thing (in moderation), and is not currently out of control or likely to become so in the developed world. Precarious work is a symptom of having an option about what work you might take, and of being denied the descent into abject poverty that made vile work for starvation wages a commonplace in the past.

Kids are (as they always were) going to have a hard life. It's even possible that they might have it a little harder than their parents did, which is understandably distressing for their parents. But they certainly won't have it as hard as their great grandparents did, nor as any of their earlier anscestors did; So let's not be too hyperbolic in our pessimism.

 

[rousseau]

They have no way to save, no way to buy a house, no way to start a family. It's physically impossible, not just hard, but impossible without taking massive financial risks. This is what I'm getting at. Unfortunately I used the word population.

You lament that immigration is required for population growth, and regret using the word population?
Personally I wonder why population growth is still considered a good thing.
If there were more houses than people, houses would be very affordable. With a growing population and a decades-long failure to build affordable housing, what you see is what you get. These things are not disconnected.

Housing is just a part of it, a reasonably big part of it, but just a part. In practice it's every economic factor that's in play: cost of tuition, vehicles, housing, stagnant wages, pensions disappearing, inflation, precarious work. Unless the parents have money kids being born today are going to have a hard time.

That's literally been true for all of human history.

For most of that history, most parents couldn't even dream of themselves or their children having tuition, a vehicle, housing (except a miserable shack provided by their landlord who was also their sole option as employer), wage increases, or any kind of pension. Inflation is a symptom of the existence of wage increases as a general expectation, and as such is a good thing (in moderation), and is not currently out of control or likely to become so in the developed world. Precarious work is a symptom of having an option about what work you might take, and of being denied the descent into abject poverty that made vile work for starvation wages a commonplace in the past.

Kids are (as they always were) going to have a hard life. It's even possible that they might have it a little harder than their parents did, which is understandably distressing for their parents. But they certainly won't have it as hard as their great grandparents did, nor as any of their earlier anscestors did; So let's not be too hyperbolic in our pessimism.

These are fair points, but the change in quality of life is more extreme than you're giving it credit for. It's not 'slightly' worse off than our parents, it's 'quite a bit worse' off.

Does an entire generation of people being unable to afford kids not sound extreme to you? And this is what I'm trying to explain that doesn't seem to be getting through. This isn't just a blip in generational well-being, this is an enormous change in the world that my generation is living through. Sure we're not slaves in ancient Rome, but things are bad for many of us.

 

[Elixir]

Does an entire generation of people being unable to afford kids not sound extreme to you?

Kids that don’t exist because parents couldn’t afford them, are not suffering.
But that’s not an entire generation by a long shot.

My mom was born in 1917. THAT was a tough time to be growing up, at least in northern Idaho. 12 years old and American workers were starving - literally. Grandpa was a farmer, fortunately. There was no money for anyone to buy what he sold, but at least my mom and four siblings had food.

 

[rousseau]

Does an entire generation of people being unable to afford kids not sound extreme to you?

Kids that don’t exist because parents couldn’t afford them, are not suffering.
But that’s not an entire generation by a long shot.

My mom was born in 1917. THAT was a tough time to be growing up, at least in northern Idaho. 12 years old and American workers were starving - literally. Grandpa was a farmer, fortunately. There was no money for anyone to buy what he sold, but at least my mom and four siblings had food.

You guys need to spend some time on Reddit following the posts of younger people. Starvation isn't altogether uncommon for us either. Or best case just eating very, very poorly.

 

[bilby]

Does an entire generation of people being unable to afford kids not sound extreme to you?

It sounds hyperbolic, and demonstrably nonsensical.

Poor people still have more kids than wealthy people.

What you are bemoaning is that middle class people now, for the first time in history, have the choice as to whether and when to have kids, and are basing that novel choice on their financial situation.

"Let's not have kids until we can afford to give them the best possible start" is a laudible sentiment, but to turn that around and say that not meeting that (hitherto unattainable) bar means that society is cruelly denying people the right to a family is, frankly, bizarre.

Would you prefer to be living in your parents era, when the decision to wait and have kids only once you were financially stable was typically rendered moot, when the wife missed her period? When unplanned preganacy was as commonplace as unplanned thunderstorms, and people just muddled through as best they could?

Having choices is always harder to handle than having no choice at all. But that doesn't mean it's worse.

 

[Elixir]

The contraceptive pill ranks as one of the most important inventions in human history, and it saved us from otherwise certain disaster.

To worry about population decline, some scant six decades later, seems pretty daft.

100% agree with that. It would be good to slow our impact by all means possible. Population reduction resulting from shifting personal priorities is probably the most benign population-reducing factor possible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There have always been those who spend too much. We don't need to pretend it's something new caused by society. Take responsibility for your own actions! The current generation is not doomed, that's just politicians presenting bogeymen. We had one generation where the white males got an above-normal deal and everyone keeps comparing society to that time. That was only for the able-bodied white males and only because pretty much the rest of the world's industrial capacity got destroyed in WWII.

And we generally don't notice how things have gotten better because it's gradual.

There are two things that cause people to see gloom where it isn't.

1) In the old days there was not a lot of machinery. A typical worker's equipment was a small part of his worth. Thus the pie was pretty much divided between workers and owners. Now there is a lot of machinery, many workers worth with equipment that is many years worth of production. That stuff doesn't appear out of nowhere--the pie was really always divided into workers/tools/capital but tools used to be too small to notice in most professions. But when you look at it as worker vs not-worker it looks like the capitalists are getting a bigger slice.

2) A lot of people simply died in the old days who now live. We spend a whole lot more on healthcare and on disability related things. And we spend a lot more on safety. None of this spending produces apparent value. Yeet me to 1924, I believe I would be dead or wish that I was. Yeet me to 1974 and it's not so clear cut but I suspect it's the same answer. Now--the last couple of years I haven't been what I used to be, but life is still reasonable.

 

[Politesse]

Boomersplaining.

 

[Swammerdami]

There are two things that cause people to see gloom where it isn't.

1) ... the pie was really always divided into workers/tools/capital but tools used to be too small to notice in most professions. But when you look at it as worker vs not-worker it looks like the capitalists are getting a bigger slice.

Tools ARE a form of capital. The capitalists DO own the tools^* and therefore, for better or worse, ARE getting a bigger slice. More intangible intellectual property is also a form of capital and is a huge part of total wealth. Of course, "capitalists" are getting an ever-increasing slice!

* - Yes, some workers are enterprising enough to save up and buy their own tools but these small-time entrepreneurs are by definition capitalists.

2) A lot of people simply died in the old days who now live. We spend a whole lot more on healthcare and on disability related things. And we spend a lot more on safety. None of this spending produces apparent value. Yeet me to 1924, I believe I would be dead or wish that I was. Yeet me to 1974 and it's not so clear cut but I suspect it's the same answer. Now--the last couple of years I haven't been what I used to be, but life is still reasonable.

This IS a good point. Longevity, nutrition, safety and medical methods have all improved. BUT progress is NOT consistently for the good. New poisons are introduced to help support rising populations; emotional stresses are on the rise; and so on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are two things that cause people to see gloom where it isn't.

1) ... the pie was really always divided into workers/tools/capital but tools used to be too small to notice in most professions. But when you look at it as worker vs not-worker it looks like the capitalists are getting a bigger slice.

Tools ARE a form of capital. The capitalists DO own the tools^* and therefore, for better or worse, ARE getting a bigger slice. More intangible intellectual property is also a form of capital and is a huge part of total wealth. Of course, "capitalists" are getting an ever-increasing slice!

But they are an essential expense, it's not going into their pockets and to redistribute the wealth would be an epic case of eating the seed corn, it would crash society.

* - Yes, some workers are enterprising enough to save up and buy their own tools but these small-time entrepreneurs are by definition capitalists.

2) A lot of people simply died in the old days who now live. We spend a whole lot more on healthcare and on disability related things. And we spend a lot more on safety. None of this spending produces apparent value. Yeet me to 1924, I believe I would be dead or wish that I was. Yeet me to 1974 and it's not so clear cut but I suspect it's the same answer. Now--the last couple of years I haven't been what I used to be, but life is still reasonable.

This IS a good point. Longevity, nutrition, safety and medical methods have all improved. BUT progress is NOT consistently for the good. New poisons are introduced to help support rising populations; emotional stresses are on the rise; and so on.

Disagree--it's not more poisons, it's more recognition of poisons.

 

[Bronzeage]

Optimism and despair have always been cyclical. In the US, the early 1900s were a period of hedonism. The Prohibition Movement was a reaction to this, but the Prohibitionist struggled in the face of economic growth and increasing urbanization. The end of WW1 turned America into a frat party that upset enough people that the 18th Amendment was finally passed in 1920. This did little to slow down the party. Life was too much fun. America was getting rich investing in the rebuilding of Europe and then the Stock Market crashed. This completely deflated all the party balloons.

The Great Depression hit Europe harder than the US. A good portion of the war reparations Germany had to pay were financed by bonds sold to Americans. This of course brought on a lot of hand wringing and wailing, and a lot of it was aimed at the current young generation. European style fascism and militarism actually started to have some appeal, but there was a problem. This brought on a lot of hand wringing and wailing, and a lot of it was aimed at the current young generation. The youth of America were a lazy bunch, more interested in driving fast cars and dancing to jazz music than marching. If one surveys the popular magazines of the 1930s, there is a constant parade of editorials about how the US could not field an army comparable to Germany or France. Americans had become "soft".

Of course, this particular class is today known as the "Greatest Generation", who went on to win WW2 and become parents of the Boomer generation, who today are worried about kids today.

 

[steve_bank]

If we are doomed it will be because resilience and endurance has been lost in our culture.

From reporting for years increasing anxiety and depression upwards of 50%.

An inability to cope with adversity.

 

[Swammerdami]

There are two things that cause people to see gloom where it isn't.

1) ... the pie was really always divided into workers/tools/capital but tools used to be too small to notice in most professions. But when you look at it as worker vs not-worker it looks like the capitalists are getting a bigger slice.

Tools ARE a form of capital. The capitalists DO own the tools^* and therefore, for better or worse, ARE getting a bigger slice. More intangible intellectual property is also a form of capital and is a huge part of total wealth. Of course, "capitalists" are getting an ever-increasing slice!

But they are an essential expense, it's not going into their pockets and to redistribute the wealth would be an epic case of eating the seed corn, it would crash society.

I thought we were using words as a dictionary defines them. Instead, do you want to inflict morality on simple words?
Yes/No: Are tools capital?

I use "capitalist" to mean "owner of capital." But here you imply that you are using the term to mean "owner of capital which Loren finds non-essential or otherwise disapproves of" or perhaps "owner of capital which Loren thinks the 'Left' disapproves of."

2) A lot of people simply died in the old days who now live. We spend a whole lot more on healthcare and on disability related things. And we spend a lot more on safety. None of this spending produces apparent value. Yeet me to 1924, I believe I would be dead or wish that I was. Yeet me to 1974 and it's not so clear cut but I suspect it's the same answer. Now--the last couple of years I haven't been what I used to be, but life is still reasonable.

This IS a good point. Longevity, nutrition, safety and medical methods have all improved. BUT progress is NOT consistently for the good. New poisons are introduced to help support rising populations; emotional stresses are on the rise; and so on.

Disagree--it's not more poisons, it's more recognition of poisons.

Emphasizing tersity, I used "poison" to describe plastics, new opiates (which have dramatically reduced life expectancy in the U.S.), CO2, the pesticides decimating ecological systems, and, for example, artificial hormones:

The common sources of steroid hormones in environment are human and livestock excretion, veterinary medicines, agricultural runoff, and pharmaceuticals. When they reach environment, their effects on human health and the environment are detrimental.
...
Micro-pollutants especially estrogens, progesterone, androgens, glucocorticoids, and growth hormones, are biological and chemical impurities that find their way into natural aquatic environments in trace quantities (ng/L), and possess a significant disturbance by impacting human and aquatic life.

 

[bigfield]

If we are doomed it will be because resilience and endurance has been lost in our culture.

From reporting for years increasing anxiety and depression upwards of 50%.

An inability to cope with adversity.

Bit rich coming from a boomer.

 

[steve_bank]

The geration before me fought WWII.

We had the Cokld War and teh Cuna Missle Cuiris.

We wmnet to te moon .

We lbed with the treat of nulear war.

The VN war.

Yet there was an optimism. We did not not whine or comp[ain and overdecorate ourselves for anxiety. We dealt with reality.

I wreathed a report on 'mental health'. A 20 something guy applied online for jobs and never heard anything back one way or the other. He said it affected his 'mental health;'.

Today people tuning to drugs approving reality.

A consequence of our easy consumptive lives. Got a problem, take a pill and all will be well.

If we are doomed it is the turn cincture has taken. An expectation by young people that they are owed something and previous s generations 'screwed it all up;' for them.


The Occupy Wall Street movement was mostly ying colelge gards sayng we got our degress and where are the jiobs? The college educated areb the ones who are supposed to make things happen.

 

[Politesse]

We had the Cokld War and teh Cuna Missle Cuiris.

Yet there was an optimism. We did not not whine or comp[ain and overdecorate ourselves for anxiety. We dealt with reality.

Today people tuning to drugs approving reality.

An expectation by young people that they are owed something and previous s generations 'screwed it all up;' for them.

The Occupy Wall Street movement was mostly ying colelge gards sayng we got our degress and where are the jiobs? The college educated areb the ones who are supposed to make things happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are two things that cause people to see gloom where it isn't.

1) ... the pie was really always divided into workers/tools/capital but tools used to be too small to notice in most professions. But when you look at it as worker vs not-worker it looks like the capitalists are getting a bigger slice.

Tools ARE a form of capital. The capitalists DO own the tools^* and therefore, for better or worse, ARE getting a bigger slice. More intangible intellectual property is also a form of capital and is a huge part of total wealth. Of course, "capitalists" are getting an ever-increasing slice!

But they are an essential expense, it's not going into their pockets and to redistribute the wealth would be an epic case of eating the seed corn, it would crash society.

I thought we were using words as a dictionary defines them. Instead, do you want to inflict morality on simple words?
Yes/No: Are tools capital?

I use "capitalist" to mean "owner of capital." But here you imply that you are using the term to mean "owner of capital which Loren finds non-essential or otherwise disapproves of" or perhaps "owner of capital which Loren thinks the 'Left' disapproves of."

The point is that the balance is shifting. People see this as greed rather than recognizing what's really going on.

2) A lot of people simply died in the old days who now live. We spend a whole lot more on healthcare and on disability related things. And we spend a lot more on safety. None of this spending produces apparent value. Yeet me to 1924, I believe I would be dead or wish that I was. Yeet me to 1974 and it's not so clear cut but I suspect it's the same answer. Now--the last couple of years I haven't been what I used to be, but life is still reasonable.

This IS a good point. Longevity, nutrition, safety and medical methods have all improved. BUT progress is NOT consistently for the good. New poisons are introduced to help support rising populations; emotional stresses are on the rise; and so on.

Disagree--it's not more poisons, it's more recognition of poisons.

Emphasizing tersity, I used "poison" to describe plastics, new opiates (which have dramatically reduced life expectancy in the U.S.), CO2, the pesticides decimating ecological systems, and, for example, artificial hormones:

New opiates haven't reduced life expectancy. The drug war has reduced life expectancy.

Meanwhile, we have pretty much gotten rid of issues like lead and arsenic. (To this day arsenic residue from long ago pesticides is an issue for those who eat a lot of rice.) And we don't have people dying in the smog. More awareness but not as many deaths.

 

[Tigers!]

If we are doomed it will be because resilience and endurance has been lost in our culture.

From reporting for years increasing anxiety and depression upwards of 50%.

An inability to cope with adversity. not getting their entitlements.

FIFY

 

[BH]

People need to understand it is good to have ambition but be realistic at the same time. There are only so many jobs that will pay very large wages. Even if everyone could be qualified for the better wage jobs there would not be enough of them to go around for everyone to have one.

I'm right under 50 and manage a retail store. It's just me-no wife or kids. Having a family was never a serious consideration for me and I make enough earning to survive fine on my own. I have a 401 k in addition to social security and and able to save a little more months than not. And I keep up with health and dental

You do the best you can with what you have.