Rachel Lu · June 3, 2012 at 6:07am

Another day, another complaint about those dang young people.

I’m not talking about Jonah Goldberg’s recent interview, in which he made the fairly ho-hum point that young people are, in general, ignorant. I’m talking about the woman in line next to me at the grocery store, talking into her cell phone. “You know these kids,” she was saying. “They think they should just be able to get out of college and step right into a job.” 

I don’t know the backstory, of course. Maybe the “kid” in question was refusing to wear a tie for an important interview. Maybe he got C’s in college and then thought he deserved a six-figure salary just for graduating. Still, it seems like I’ve been hearing this sort of complaint a lot lately, and it gets me to thinking. I can understand heaping scorn on the young when they demand handouts. But jobs? Would better-bred young people cheerfully accept that it’s normal to spend several months living out of their parents’ basements and scrounging for interviews while delivering papers and flipping burgers in order to keep on top of their college loans?

No one needs to lecture me on the aggravating features of the young. I teach undergraduate courses, so I see twenty-year-olds at their most insecure. Actually, non-tenured academics get to experience the young in a particularly degrading way, because we, for professional reasons, need them to give us good teaching evaluations. We actually have to make the little tyrants like us, if we care about staying employed. So we know all about their ignorance, and their hunger for affirmation, and their – to use the favorite buzz-word –entitlement.

Ah, entitlement. It’s a funny word, really. What does it mean? It has something to do with the perception that one deserves something. When it is used pejoratively, presumably that implies that a person’s sense of entitlement is ill-founded; he doesn’t really deserve the things he thinks he should get. This plunges us into some very thorny questions about justice and fairness and the like. Rather than sort through these, I would like to make a simple observation: all of us expect a great many things out of life that we have not earned.

This is particularly obvious to those of us who care for young children. Children are regular black holes of neediness.  They want, and want, and go on wanting long after your resources are exhausted; babies in particular have no sense whatsoever of there being reasonable boundaries on their demands. What is more, children experience every denial as a personal injury. Talk about entitlement! What has my 2-year-old done to deserve another playground trip, another story, or even another nutritious meal? His contributions to the household are minimal, to say the least. And yet, I would rightly feel guilty if I never gave him these good things. His expectations are based on his needs, and on his perception of what is required to make his life worthwhile. And even though his individual demands are often unreasonable, the underlying premises are moderately sound. As a human being, he does have moral worth, and he ought to live a worthwhile life. As one who bears significant responsibility for his existence, I ought to be interested in seeing that he does.

Some might hasten to remind me that twenty-year-olds are not toddlers; if there is a strong resemblance between the two, that may be part of the problem. It seems to me, though, that all of us are like toddlers to a considerable extent. We set our expectations and lay our plans based on what we see around us. When the rules change on us mid-stream, we get frustrated, upset and angry. Many complain about the entitlement of the Millennials, but as a thirty-something (so, old enough to have been paying my own bills for a good while, but young enough to be confident that I’m not getting Social Security) it sometimes seems to me that the Boomers are awfully entitled, demanding benefits that they haven’t adequately funded and thinking the difference should be made up by a too-small generation that many of them couldn’t be bothered to help raise. Such is the way of the world, however. We form expectations based on the world we see around us. We feel entitled, and when the world doesn’t give us what we regard as our fair share, we think we’ve been cheated. We are all, to put it bluntly, entitled jerks.

I diagnose the problems of the rising generation thusly. They were raised in a time of peace and prosperity. Their parents and teachers effectively promised them that they could enjoy the same if they worked hard and kept their noses clean and stayed in school. It seemed like a good trade. Unfortunately, the deal was mostly illusory. Their college degrees were much more expensive than their parents’, and are much less marketable. The job market has turned bleak at precisely the time when the national debt is spiraling out of control. At precisely the time when they most desperately want support, their elders start grumbling about how entitled they are. Twenty-somethings are always so easy to criticize, but personally, I find it hard to blame them for being angry and confused. With the mirage of their parents’ comfortable lifestyle dissipating, they literally do not know what sort of lives they can expect to live. Somehow they’re supposed to pay their own debts and the nation’s debt, and raise families at the same time, all despite the fact that nobody wants to hire them. The math doesn’t quite add up.

I’ve occasionally been accused of inciting intergenerational warfare, but it seems to me that I’m not so much inciting as observing that intergenerational conflict is imminent, and will only be averted if we can find ways to adapt, together, to a changing world. The truth is that we all probably feel entitled to things we’re not going to be able to have, whether that be a comfortable retirement or an interesting job or a three-bedroom house with a yard. We’ll adapt. It’s what people do. But if indeed older Americans are so replete with wisdom and experience, perhaps they should take this opportunity to show it by being the bigger people. Stop blaming the young for problems they didn’t create.

Comments:


drlorentz
Joined
Sep '10
drlorentz

Astonishing

 Experience is an unforgiving  teacher.

But a fools will learn from no other. ;)  [Apologies to B. Franklin.]

Rachel Lu
Joined
Apr '12
Rachel Lu
After you  called them "little tyrants," Rachel, you mustn't fuss at your elders for not saying sweeter things about the darlings.

Why not? My attitude has "tough love" all over it. I identify their faults, but take a lively interest in their welfare. This despite the fact that they elected Obama, which is going to hurt me (as a 30-something) very nearly as much as it hurts them. (I have never voted for a Democrat, by the way. I have no such youthful folly of which to repent.)

Might it help if I put it this way? I don't really care whether or to what extent the problems of the young are their own fault. I care about the fact that the young are the future of our country, whether we like it or not. If they don't generate wealth, if they don't raise families, if they don't establish themselves as successful adults... our society is doomed. Right now they're exhibiting a significant failure to thrive, and I think conservatives should be a lot more worried about that than most seem to be.

Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Joined
Aug '10
Midget Faded Rattlesnake

Rachel Lu

I personally am not that interested either in determining fault or in deciding which generation is (or will be) the most victimized. You could argue those questions forever, and why does it matter anyway?

Rachel Lu

Might it help if I put it this way? I don't really care whether or to what extent the problems of the young are their own fault. I care about the fact that the young are the future of our country, whether we like it or not. If they don't generate wealth, if they don't raise families, if they don't establish themselves as successful adults... our society is doomed. Right now they're exhibiting a significant failure to thrive, and I think conservatives should be a lot more worried about that than most seem to be. 

Exactly.

Assigning blame for its own sake is not useful for solving problems.

Fixing things often does require knowing where and how a problem started. To the extent that assigning blame helps with problem-solving, fine. But playing the blame-game beyond that point is simply counterproductive.

And often cowardly, to be honest.

SettlerMom
Joined
Mar '11
SettlerMom

I nominate this for the post of the week.

show She's comment (#45)
She
Joined
Dec '10
She

"I think we're all entitled jerks," "we feel cheated," "we get cranky."

As I said, speak for yourself.

As to whether or not you said "childless people should not get retirement benefits," you said "the people who are most ruthless about demanding their benefits are the ones who have not raised children [and are] often the ones who have trouble looking past their own immediate interests to consider the needs of the nation."

You then state that the assertion that "childless people should not get retirement benefits" would NOT be a ridiculous thing to consider.

You're position is clear.

I'm sorry for people whose life doesn't fulfill their expectations.  As a grownup, I've learned that that happens.  It's hard.

But the country is not in the precarious fiscal position it is today because the 'Boomers' haven't paid enough taxes or the 'Boomers' have been given too many benefits. It's in the precarious position it is because of sixty years of ruinous social engineering projects that cut across all generations, income levels and political persuasions.

It really is time to stop pointing fingers and looking for villains, and face the real problem.

Rachel Lu
Joined
Apr '12
Rachel Lu

Very well, then. Since you, at least, have obviously not succumbed to crankiness, I will amend my title. Let it be known that we are all entitled jerks.... except She.

show She's comment (#47)
She
Joined
Dec '10
She

Oh, I don't know, Rachel.  I suspect there are many more like me, living their lives, coping with its daily vicissitudes and dealing with disappointments as they come along, generally with a smile on our faces and a resolution not to succumb to anger and bitterness, and without developing a feeling of cranky entitlement that defines our very being . . . 

Rachel Lu: Very well, then. Since you, at least, have obviously not succumbed to crankiness, I will amend my title. Let it be known that we are all entitled jerks.... except She. · 43 minutes ago
Edited on June 4, 2012 at 3:53pm
drlorentz
Joined
Sep '10
drlorentz
She:
...
But the country is not in the precarious fiscal position it is today because the 'Boomers' haven't paid enough taxes or the 'Boomers' have been given too many benefits.
...

I don't know if this assertion is true or false. No one has cited any actuarial data. My suspicion is that folks retiring today will be getting more out than they put in, but it's only a suspicion. What I do know is that this is a factual matter that can be settled. Hurling barbs at one another does not further the discussion as much as a single piece of data.

Does anyone have a reference that addresses this? The answer seems relevant and, at least for some of the participants to the discussion, of crucial importance.

Rachel Lu
Joined
Apr '12
Rachel Lu

Sure, there's definitely data on all this stuff. But it seemed a little late in the thread to go racing off on another tangent, especially given that I'm not sure what She is claiming. Have the Boomers paid more in payroll taxes than what they've already taken out in retirement benefits? I expect so, though it may depend on who gets counted as a Boomer. Have they paid as much as they are likely to take out if Social Security and Medicare continue in their current forms? Nowhere close. I believe I've seen estimates that the average retiring person today (though of course, individuals vary widely) has paid about a third of what they can be expected to receive in retirement benefits given current levels of spending. Another fact people like to cite is that, at the advent of Social Security, there were 16 workers paying into the system for every retiree; today it's more like three to one. (Liberals claim this is somehow irrelevant, though I've never been able to understand why... seems pretty relevant to me.) 

Longer life spans are one causal factor. Low birth rates are another.

drlorentz
Joined
Sep '10
drlorentz

Rachel Lu: Sure, there's definitely data on all this stuff. But it seemed a little late in the thread to go racing off on another tangent...

Have they paid as much as they are likely to take out if Social Security and Medicare continue in their current forms? Nowhere close.

Yup, there's data. It would seem that facts would be the starting point, not the endpoint, of the discussion. And it hardly seems like a tangent, given that the answer to the question determines the sense in which recipients are entitled. Either they are entitled in the pejorative sense that you used in your post or in the dictionary sense: a just claim to receive or do something.

The data:

This [75-year actuarial] deficit amounts to 20 percent of program non-interest income or 16 percent of program cost.

A tad higher numbers for Medicare. So, yes, retirees will receive more than they paid, using proper actuarial methods. Nowhere close, you say? Depends on your definition of close. A lot closer to 100% than to the speculated 1/3. It's more like 80%. Not quite as inflammatory, is it.

Facts are stubborn things.
-John Adams

Rachel Lu
Joined
Apr '12
Rachel Lu

If only they were! Sifting through data and projections is really quite a complicated business. Note, as Exhibit A, the first few paragraphs of the document you linked, in which the SSA explains how much the projections have worsened since last year! It's a perfectly fine discussion to have, but not the one we've been having here. (Relevant, but the relationship is complicated.) If you want to talk about the fiscal outlook of SS and Medicare, why not start a new thread on the topic?

Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing

Rachel Lu

Astonishing: After you  called them "little tyrants," Rachel, you mustn't fuss at your elders for not saying sweeter things about the darlings.

Why not? . . . .

Because it cannot be polite to fuss at your elders when they are no more crotchety than you youngsters are.

Rachel Lu . . . Right now they're exhibiting a significant failure to thrive, and I think conservatives should be a lot more worried about that than most seem to be. 

Well, I am worried about them . . .  but am no longer in a position to do much about it. I've raised mine and helped to educate some others, but those days are gone. However, you do seem to be in a position to help them, so I wish you well. (Trying to make them like you would be a mistake.)

My impression is that too many of them are poorly brought up and mis-educated, but it is almost too late to do much about that once they reach college. By then, many of them are ineducable, with bad habits firmly set.

Aside from a lack of deep curiousity, the deficiency among younger generations that worries me most is of the sense of humor.

drlorentz
Joined
Sep '10
drlorentz

Astonishing

Rachel Lu . . . Right now they're exhibiting a significant failure to thrive, and I think conservatives should be a lot more worried about that than most seem to be. 

Well, I am worried about them . . .  but am no longer in a position to do much about it. I've raised mine and helped to educate some others, but those days are gone. However, you do seem to be in a position to help them, so I wish you well. (Trying to make them like you would be a mistake.)

Failure to thrive is a term from pediatrics:

Failure to thrive refers to children whose current weight or rate of weight gain is significantly lower than that of other children of similar age and gender.

Parents and other caregivers are clearly responsible to help  children thrive because they can scarcely help themselves. The question is, how long are they to remain children? It would be unusual to see that expression used for a middle-aged person, though it does enjoy some currency in the field of geriatrics - another group who often can't help themselves.

The use of the term in the context of people in their 20s is telling.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In