patrick.net

Not so, we were raised to be self sufficient, we don't sit on our asses waiting to be validated, or given permission to work.
We are 10 times more resourceful and are better at following through on ideas and plans than Millennials are.

If you're 35 years old and you still haven't paid off your college debt, then you shouldn't have gone to college.

Also college for my generation was a thing that only kids from well off parents went to, or they got scholarships.
For the other 85% of us that didn't go, we had two car garages from doing trades before those who went to college got a living wage job.
Gen X could do anything they set their minds to. Going from homeless drug addicted rock bottom to creating a business that made them middle class income in less than a year.
We just had more going on. 90% of the things that I could think of that we used to be able to do, is now regulated businesses that requires liability insurance, wc, local license, bonded, then you've got to find a distributor that is willing to sell you product to sell that doesn't have exclusivity clauses with the few monopoly big players in those industries.

It's not that millennials are useless we've designed them to be, then lied to them and told them doing what ever you set your mind to is impossible. Well it's legally impossible, but they have never been taught to know the difference... the Poor Bastards...

that's the 'x' part...

Heraclitusstudent says

The members of Generation X have plenty to be grumpy about. For starters, no one talks about them anymore. Its all millennials all the time.

SoftShell says

For starters, no one talks about them anymore.

We don't get out much but our money damned sure does. Pretty much every cent that people 16 to 26 spending came from Mom or Dad. Their part time McDonald's job only pays for their iPhone accessories.

One last point that blows holes in this obvious Socialist propaganda piece, if you walk into any business the part time store front guys, "the people with the name tags" are all either Millennials or Boomers. The ones making any real money are the X'ers they are in the back working on or in the business processes.

Heraclitusstudent says

no one talks about them anymore. Its all millennials all the time

yup, the rise of hipsterism really hits me that Gen X's time on the youth stage was ending.

the fuck are these goofy beards, man.

next the world will get our politicians. Obama is a tail-end boomer, though he was rather young when elected.
His predecessor was an early Boomer, and the Clintons are also early boomers (also born in '46)

millenials are age 15-33 now. Xers are 33-51.

More millenials than Xers because the former are boomer echo:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LFWA24TTUSM647N

"They have more debt than other age"

mostly home debt, being age 33-51, the prime mortgage time.

Bellingham Bill says

mostly home debt, being age 33-51, the prime mortgage time.

Gen Xers were force to pay full price in the wake of the boomers bubble.
Now the question is will millennials pick up the tab or just say "no thank you" and force a reset.

Gen Xers have never been one to be forced to do anything. That's why the media hates us.
We're from the factory direct age of value packs, and wholesale. Long before Sams Club and Costco redefined it to mean retail in bulk.

Heraclitusstudent says

Gen Xers were force to pay full price in the wake of the boomers bubble.

There have been studies which show that what sort of economic climate one graduates into has a substantial correlation with lifetime earnings. One explanation is that if you graduate into a recession, you not only fail to earn for a few years, but you then compete with more people for entry-level jobs when things pick back up. And then you have a smaller stretch of your career at peak earnings later on.

The leading edge of generation X pretty much faceplanted into the Bush I economy of '89-'92, and benefited little from the Clinton prosperity, which was better for higher-level workers and investors: that money basically went to the boomers.

Heraclitusstudent says

Now the question is will millennials pick up the tab or just say "no thank you" and force a reset.

I live in hope, but I see no reason why this generation will be any more resistant to housing brainwashing than previous ones.

HydroCabron says

I live in hope, but I see no reason why this generation will be any more resistant to housing brainwashing than previous ones.

Whether they rent or buy, either way the parasitical class wins in the long run. Unless we start to see a population decrease.

But it is true that at some point, housing goes back to how it once was, that is not appreciating so much that it provides many with the bulk of their retirement savings,

"There have been studies which show that what sort of economic climate one graduates into has a substantial correlation with lifetime earnings. One explanation is that if you graduate into a recession, you not only fail to earn for a few years, but you then compete with more people for entry-level jobs when things pick back up. And then you have a smaller stretch of your career at peak earnings later on.

The leading edge of generation X pretty much faceplanted into the Bush I economy of '89-'92, and benefited little from the Clinton prosperity, which was better for higher-level workers and investors: that money basically went to the boomers."

This is actually true. I'm right in the middle of Gen X. Graduated college at the very end of 1995 right in the middle of a recession and a 6.5% unemployment rate(I think Los Angeles was actually around 8-9% unemployment). I was happy to get a job related to my degree at $13.50 an hour...many of my classmates were stuck working for Enterprise's "management program" washing cars for $10.hr. Of course the practical nature of being behind the curves wage wise at this time was that while the Los Angeles housing market was VERY low at that time, I wouldn't be able to afford anything until around 2001 when housing in LA started to skyrocket and while my income rose substantially, it never caught up enough for me to be able to afford to buy.

This year the millenials turned into the largest workforce demographic.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/11/millennials-surpass-gen-xers-as-the-largest-generation-in-u-s-labor-force/

As a result, workplace will be transformed from frederick taylor's scientific management theory X to "work form anywhere" model due to millenials relationship with technology. The gain in flexibility will be offset by the blur between personal and professional life. The mechanical nature of work will be replaced by the fact that people will never really leave work while they "enjoy" "flexibility." This will really pick up speed around 2020.

marcus says

Whether they rent or buy, either way the parasitical class wins in the long run.

Not if they live with their parents. or triple up with other students.

HydroCabron says

The leading edge of generation X pretty much faceplanted into the Bush I economy of '89-'92

The main drag was probably to those who bought houses in the boomers bubble. And maybe the general hollowing of the economy that suited the boomers.

dodgerfanjohn says

Enterprise's "management program"

Ha! So many people fell into this crap. Enterprise is real good with that carrot dangling out just out of reach while working them like a dog. I know at least 3 people in the 90s and 2000s who got trapped in that "opportunity", doing everything from washing cars to getting screamed at, 50-60 hours a week for bupkiss money.

Corporations know educated young people want to prove themselves and take advantage of that.

My advice for young guys is:
If you spend most of your time doing stocking shelves, ringing registers, hauling product around, washing things, etc., and seldom if ever have any control over scheduling or overseeing work or running numbers, then you're not in a management trainee program, but being treated like a sucker. As yourself, what instruction have I gotten after so many weeks doing dogsbody work? Has somebody shown me the management systems? Told me how payroll works? Shared the weekly/monthly revenue goals? Or am I just coming in at 3AM to unload trucks - a dogsbody they trust with a key. You can make the same money without pulling your hair out, and constantly thinking you're being tested, and thinking just a few more weeks of hell and they'll give you a good salary.

Another clue: How many other "Management Trainees" are there, and how long have they been working? If there are only 40 employees, but 5 management trainees, red fleg. If the others have been there for months, or more than a year, and are still running around like crazed chickens on crack, get the hell out of there, don't waste your brief time on Earth.

PS Earlier this year I saw a guy I worked for as a management trainee in the late 90s. He was still running around the same store, doing the same shit he was 15+ years ago, probably for pretty much the same salary. He's mellowed out and grayed considerably though: Before he would swing from the stacks like a monkey, come in at all hours, etc. Never made District Manager. Dead man's shoes.

Get a trade and make your own way. You're much better knocking yourself out mowing lawns or fixing door knobs or washing cars in parking lots or baking cookies to please a client, than doing the same for a corporation. Word will get around, you'll get more jobs and be able to charge more, and your own master.

the fuck are these goofy beards, man.

I love them. Just one more reason that makes it even easier to get laid

Those guys must love their beards more than getting laid.

thunderlips11 says

You're much better knocking yourself out mowing lawns or fixing door knobs or washing cars in parking lots or baking cookies to please a client, than doing the same for a corporation

Seriously: there are actual opportunities out there. There are few-to-none in the petrified mausoleum-like atmosphere of a corporate authority tree.

That article assumes that the poor are financial secure.

As the poor, homeless and entitled are most definitely "general population" unless there's no telling what that means.

dodgerfanjohn says

Enterprise's "management program" washing cars for $10.hr.

That reminds me a guy I saw washing toilets at In&Out.
He was wearing a label 'Assistant Manager in charge of hygiene'.

Hellllo... you're cleaning up toilets dude!

I don't see a reasonable explanation as to why housing prices are sustainable, even with a shortage of dwellings.

There is a shortage of shelter, but not a shortage of houses. Two generations are better off in apartments or condos than in the SFH with big yards, front and rear. We need more apartments and multi-family housing.

I see no way to support the current SFH prices at these income levels. Something must give out.

HydroCabron says

Two generations are better off in apartments or condos than in the SFH with big yards, front and rear. We need more apartments and multi-family housing.

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. You say it's better to cram multi generations into an Apartment over a house with a big back yard, with an inlaw quarters and a garage that can be converted as well as other mixed use rooms? The rooms in a SFH are much easier to convert for multi use, as well as yards give additional space to grow. In Peru, there are no yards, and the houses are vertical and shares walls with neighbors. But the difference in that and a typical American apartment or condo arrangement. There's several third party entities involved seeking rent of the whole process from development to long after it's occupied. These are Single family dwelling, and there aren't any HOA and the fees that goes with it. They start with one story and as the get money or the next generation grows. They will add a floor to the structure, building up. Foreigners refer to the neighborhoods as Lego-villes. It works for them and that model could work anywhere but except for here in America. We have too many rent seekers that spend a lot of money in Washington lobbying to make sure people never get their won say in building properties like that.
The closest we come to it. Is old neighborhoods that were started before the rent seekers took over government. Like where I live in Hollywood Florida. Old Hollywood is zoned to build in-law quarters, efficiency, a duplex what ever you have the room for. The average lots are 10K and the original house on many of these lots are less than 1K sqft. So as a result, many of these single family homes have about 3 to 4 income producing dwellings on their property. I had one on the house I bought in 2010, I knock the wall through at the end of the hall, to incorporate the 1br apartment on the side of the house, into the main house. Which I use as my office, studio, extra kitchen and extra bathroom. the foot print of the whole structure is 2500 sqft. I still have room in my back yard to add a full duplex if I wanted to.

HydroCabron says

I see no way to support the current SFH prices at these income levels. Something must give out.

Yes, it can be sustained if only a few people sell their homes, to rich people.

CaptainShuddup says

You say it's better to cram multi generations into an Apartment over a house with a big back yard, with an inlaw quarters and a garage that can be converted as well as other mixed use rooms

Dipshit. I said apartment/condo multi-family housing is a better choice for those generations.

What you go on describe is multi-family housing - a conversion of a SFH to apartments or condos. Doesn't matter whether it starts as an apartment/condo, or is a SFH conversion.

By the way, I don't think they'll necessarily enjoy listening to their neighbors breathing, which tends to be an issue in conversions of single-family homes to condos.

regardless how you classify the living arrangement, just to be clear. A family estate is better than a family being subjected to board rules.

Multi generational families are large and loud and usually run into problems in typical apartment and condo multifamily dwellings.

CaptainShuddup says

A family estate is better than a family being subjected to board rules.

By the way: I have lived in a condo carved out of an old SFH. There was a condo association, with dues and rules.

HydroCabron says

I said apartment/condo multi-family housing is a better choice for those generation

This brings up an interesting related point. I've often wondered about the question of why more of the Los Angeles homes I see aren't economically viable for a tear down. In some cases I think I get it.

I see so many neighborhoods where a old structure, not all that much better than a shack is worth say $450K - $550K, where the home is small old and nothing special. THe land value is probably well over $350K. Because of the value of the other homes in the neighborhood, a teardown doesn't make sense, because a $700K home doesn't make sense in that neighborhood.

But what would make economic sense (but might in some cases require a zoning change), would be tearing down 4 consecutive homes and building an apartment complex for rentals or condos with I don't know, perhaps 16 one bedroom apartments ?

So, you might be on to something. Homes tend to be pretty small here, so conversion of single homes doesn't make that much sense, but I can see it making sense in the Midwest, where a lot of those homes from the early 20 century are huge, and designed for large families, back when ownng a 3000 squre foot house was not at all unusual for middle class or upper middle class families.

HydroCabron says

By the way: I have lived in a condo carved out of an old SFH. There was a condo association, with dues and rules.

Well that's a shame...