> They want a standard of living that requires competitiveness globally, but in this country, we no longer want to work for it.
That’s not what I see at all. Most working people in the current generation are working more hours, at more skilled jobs, with more education than their parents, and yet the lifestyle they can afford (aside from tech gadgets) is worse and less secure than their parents.
I’m pessimistic about more young people studying subjects that are not useful, but I think in general this generation has gotten a bad (financial) deal in comparison.
> Most working people in the current generation are working more hours
This is just completely false. Both average working hours (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG) and labor force participation (https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-lab...) has been trending downwards. I think more revealing than our hours of work is our attitudes towards work. Watch American Factory and observe the difference between Chinese and American workers. The Chinese workers simply care a lot more about getting their jobs done. I do think it's a good thing that we can afford to have higher standards for ourselves, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking this doesn't come with any downsides.
This idea of higher hour and higher skill jobs doesn't necessarily conflict with the claim about not working (or being lazy). Workforce participation rates are historically low in the US.
So the people who work tend to work hard. But a large number of people choose not to work or even seek work (for a variety of reasons, so lazy might be a little too catch-all).
This just doesn't seem to be the case with the peers I know, and covid made everything worse for morale. Nobody really wants to work anymore, service speed has fallen off a cliff in my area (South Florida), staff shortages are still in effect, nobody wants to have kids/get married, etc.
In many parts of jobs that have public facing people, the perceived increase in the lack of civility has made those jobs much more difficult to accept for any length of time.
The combination of job loss, retraining for jobs that don't deal with the public, and acceptance of austerity (including moving back in with one's parents in some cases) to have an extended duration of no income means that you don't need to accept a job that pays poorly or deals with uncivil people.
This has resulted in a reduction of capacity in many parts of the service industry.
> staff shortages are still in effect
A lot of people upskilled in the past two years and those staff shortages will remain until a new cohort of workers exists in that area that lack the skills to get the better paying jobs that don't interact with the public.
> nobody wants to have kids/get married
While the marriage rate has dropped precariously, I'll point to https://www.statista.com/statistics/195951/marriage-rate-in-... and point out that the chart ends in 2020 and that weddings weren't things that were easily held in the past two years either. However, the trend that is shown in that graph is one that has lasted for three decades - not three years.
The "no one wants to have kids" needs to also be put into context of the percent of the cost of raising a child against the income and wealth for the generational cohort.
Still, if one is paying off their own college loans it is difficult to think of adding to that putting away money for a child's college costs. If a household is living pretty much paycheck to paycheck or has significant debt that they're paying down for whatever reason, having a child with an additional amount of cost would be considered to be unwise for people who have a fiscally responsible mind.
I’d like to make a meta response to your post not about specific points you raised but how you made your point.
I’ve been a fairly progressive or at least liberal my whole life. I also like to look at what the data tells us.
I’m not certain that looking at “data” means we have real facts. At best, we have some quantitative representation that fits the narrative being pushed by its creators.
Within progressive circles, I’ve seen data showing that the new generations are placing family on hold because they can hardly afford things, despite having “well paid” jobs. Other data shows that these millennials are all living with their parents. But then there’s another study saying something completely different. People slice and dice whatever information they have to fit whatever narrative.
I’ve personally become less willing to engage in conversation or debate when someone comes in and claims to have the data refuting what everyone is seeing with their own eyes and living day to day.
It’s like in Seattle. We have homicides, shootings about every week. A woman was recently beaten with a baseball bat at a transit station. But then the local government and its outsourced “activist” advisors say we cannot and should not lock up the suspect (who confessed) because he’s a minority, and minorities have faced systemic racism, etc etc. and the real solution is to increase taxes on billionaires. “I have some data, therefore I know more and I’m right and everyone else is wrong.” No thanks.
There are three parts to the supplying the data that supports the narrative that I show.
First, often I've had situations where the other party uses the "support it" refutation in some way. In an online environment, the time between the "support it" reply and my response gets responses like "[crickets]" suggesting that the other person won the argument - and that any who see the "support it" being the last post supports the position that I am wrong.
Second, it moves the burden of the previous "support it" refutation to the person without the data and telling a just so story ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story ) or working off of personal anecdotes. A refutation of my post needs data of comparable weight.
Third, sometimes I am wrong. There have certainly been times when I was tracking down the information that would support my position only to find that I was in the wrong. By providing the data up front, I save myself from this possible loss of face from posting an unsubstantiated narrative that runs counter to what the numbers present.
All you're saying is that you like your narrative & you intend to stick to it despite any contradicting evidence that may be presented.
It's true that data must be judged for relevance & validity, but to just discard it in preference of your opinion is really egotistical.
Also, statistical data doesn't offer solutions; it only presents a broader perspective than one's collection of anecdotes.
So your example of Seattle choosing what you consider to be the wrong solution is not a very persuasive argument against collecting & using data itself.
> All you're saying is that you like your narrative & you intend to stick to it despite any contradicting evidence that may be presented.
Not at all.
I’m simply saying that anyone can fudge the numbers and claim to have “data” to support their argument.
> Also, statistical data doesn't offer solutions; it only presents a broader perspective than one's collection of anecdotes.
It offers an easily distortable “perspective”, and the same dataset is often misrepresented and twisted for convenience.
It’s a recurring theme, especially in leftist politics. Using “data” to spin a narrative and tell people the sky is pink when they can clearly see it’s blue.
> I’m simply saying that anyone can fudge the numbers and claim to have “data” to support their argument.
This is why reproduction & peer review of methodology are such important steps of the scientific method.
You're not supposed to take a single person's word on what data is.
This is also why certain fields like psychology have something of a credibility crisis, because so many "discoveries" have not been able to be reproduced.
I'm curious though: Can you actually recall specific events of a "leftist" using a false data set or are you just engaging in general slander against your political opponents?
That’s not what I see at all. Most working people in the current generation are working more hours, at more skilled jobs, with more education than their parents, and yet the lifestyle they can afford (aside from tech gadgets) is worse and less secure than their parents.
I’m pessimistic about more young people studying subjects that are not useful, but I think in general this generation has gotten a bad (financial) deal in comparison.