I 110% disagree. I think that’s jumping to conclusions. The holocaust denier comment was simply used an example to get the point across. I think saying there as any comparison there is stretching or twisting the words that were typed. But regardless, as I said, I apologize for derailment.
We’re all friends here. Let’s try to keep it that way.
Thank you for clarifying. Glad to hear that wasn’t what you meant to do.
There were some interesting labor force stats in this summary:
In particular, younger men, especially younger men without advanced education (college+), were having a lot harder time finding jobs than before the recession, while women and older more expereience guys both suffered a smaller drop and had a better recovery during the same time period. Hard to say where the causality lies, but it does seem to indicate the current job market for newer adults is less friendly than it had been.
The unemployment rate for 20-24 year old men is 8% right now. Thats about 1% higher than women that age. However its lower than its been for nearly 20 years. Only about 1% fewer of young men are in the job market now versus pre recession. The % of men in the workforce has been dropping gradually for decades. Yet still ~88-89% of men that age are employed versus 75% of women.
I had the impression that Xerty’s post was more about labor force participation, not unemployment rate.
Both of you could be correct in what you’re quoting about that age group…
Yeah sorry if I conflated the two. And I see that I did incorrectly say taht 88-89% of men and ~75% of women are “employed” but those are actually the labor force participation rates from the article Xerty linked too. Its kind of hard to bemoan how hard men have it when their participation rate is still so much higher than women.
Xerty did say that younger men are “having a lot harder time finding jobs” which I think is really about unemployment rate more than participation rate. Though there is the argument that more people “sit out” when the job market is tough and thats true, but the unemployment rate is the direct measure of how hard a job market is, not the secondary effects on the participation rate.
Anecdotal evidence here, so be wary.
I have been presenting to STEM college students pretty regularly for the past 25+ years. I have seen a very steady increase in the proportion of women in the classes. When I started (and when I graduated), STEM (which wasn’t a thing then) was overwhelmingly male. It is now a LOT closer to 50/50 or MORE than 50/50. I’ve been blessed to be able to do this in a few different places across the country – things are WAAAAY more female STEM in the Midwest and West, less so in the Southeast.
Let’s face it, boys… women are taking over the world.
I think the overall perception is based on inflated expectations. Millennials have been told that they need to go to school and then they will make a ton of money, not realizing that they need to build up some experience before making real headway. They have grown up in an environment that reduces their attention and patience. I recommend a few books to folks that are really looking to adjust their mindset: “So Good They Can’t Ignore You” and “Deep Work” by Cal Newport. The basic premise is that to develop a good career, you need to build up a rare and valuable skill and grow career capital; the career capital gives you the ability to bargain for more desirable working terms (all from the first book) that you can use to have a lifestyle that you prefer and the ability to develop focus and attention (from the second book). I have them on Audible and try to listen to them quarterly just to refocus. I have developed my own routines that help me get to this area.
According to the generation bands, I am on the border of Gen X and Millenial and have nearly 20 years of experience now (having graduated high school early and immediately starting in my field). I think that my personality and experience place me more in the Gen X camp along with those who are my peers.
Another good listen is the Cortex podcast that has CGP Grey as one of the hosts, a Youtuber that has built up a good following and talks a lot about his work and tech. I try to re-listen to the first 10 episodes that were really just more of an interview style where the other host queried Grey; later episodes are more of a back and forth, which are also great, but the first 10 are very repeatable.
Financial prospects and optimism rise based on the economy, including among younger adults.
Amusingly, despite most people expecting next year will see their personal finances in a better place than now, those identifying as Democrats view themselves as “worse off” than before the last election. Seems like some odd political thinking getting mixed up in these various polls. Not surprising perhaps, since logical consistency is pretty rare.
Being “broke” today is a completely different standard than being broke 30 years ago, or just a few years ago.
What do you base this on?
The fact we all have bigger TVs and better phones?
As the article mentions, same idea applied for previous presidents. My guess is because the terms “better off” and “worse off” are not quantified. For example, one may be more wealthy or have higher income now than before, implying they’re “better off” under that definition, but with an uncertain political and trade climate, higher inflation, higher expectation of inflation, dissatisfaction with the direction the government may be considering (regulation vs deregulation, entitlement reform, retirement privatization, universal healthcare, etc), one could expect their financial luck to turn around and their wealth to evaporate quicker, so they really are worse off.
Yeah, that statement conveniently forgets that those huge bag cell phones were still $1500 back in the day, where $1500 was a LOT more spending power than it is today. It’s funny to see people complain about Apple charging $1k for a phone, yet they buy it anyway. Such is life, I suppose.