
Debt. Terror. Politics. To Seattle Millennials, the Future Looks Scary - e15ctr0n
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/seattle-millennials-economy-student-debt-politics.html
======
pnathan
It depends on who you ask. The narrative here is of precarious terror. Other
people will have a different story.

Seattle attracts a _lot_ of people, and they often have sticker shock because
they didn't do enough research. _And_ , a lot of people feel entitled to live
in the hippest neighborhoods very cheap.

That said. The writer needs to contextualize this. In 2001, the year I went to
college, the Twin Towers fell and a plane crashed into the Pentagon: being
someone who had read some history, I was sure that day that, attackers being
intelligent, a wave of guerilla attacks would go off against major military
and civilian targets. Surprisingly, that didn't happen.

In 1983, deep fear of the USSR was playing out.

In 1974, the US was in Vietnam. Many people were dying constantly, and it was
on the TV nightly.

In 1968, campuses rioted. Bewilderment set in over the nation.

In 1961, the Soviets/East Germans put up the Berlin Wall.

In 1948, the Cold War started.

In 1939, WW2 started.

In 1932, FDR became president, in a _profound_ economic situation far worse
than what we've seen since.

I could go on. _The future is scary_. But since it happens regardless of our
personal choices, our best bet is to keep a stiff upper lip, our chin up, and
wade into the stream, keeping a weather eye out to maximize our luck surface.

~~~
codingmyway
As someone in Europe I just don't understand the level of fear among Americans
who are in the safest position probably of any population ever. Is it just
media bias?

If I lived in eastern Europe any where near Turkey right now I'd be more
afraid.

~~~
pnathan
> As someone in Europe I just don't understand the level of fear among
> Americans who are in the safest position probably of any population ever. Is
> it just media bias?

No. People _really are_ that afraid.

I don't know why.

~~~
nickbauman
Fear is a powerful political tool. If you can make people afraid, you can
control them. Daesh knows this. Governments know this. Media knows this.

The antidote is:

1\. Practice information hygiene. Who is saying it? How do they benefit in
making you afraid? What are the opposing viewpoints? Where is the evidence?
2\. Be aware of cognitive biases.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)
3\. Know history (this is especially hard for Americans). At least the history
of the issue at stake.

~~~
ethbro
_> Fear is a powerful political tool. If you can make people afraid, you can
control them._

I don't think that's the whole of it though. A large part of the American
media / news system is still profit driven -- I'd say a large enough part to
swamp editorial intent if the two butt heads.

It seems to me another explanation for the evidence is that people _like_
being afraid.

~~~
codingmyway
I've mentioned elsewhere that a profit driven media leads to sensationalism
and emotion driven content over objective fact telling.

That is the one thing that I can think of that is particularly American but
there does still seem an inverse instinct within the US, where someone in say
Alabama, who is as likely to be touched by a terrorist as they are by aliens
are more likely to be a doomsday prepper.

------
codemac
These feelings are not unique to our generation -- they are part of becoming
aware enough of everything around you. I would agree though that most of my
friends don't believe they're building a future for themselves. Several
friends in their mid-thirties don't have retirement accounts because they
strongly believe it supports an unethical economy.

The idea that the nation seemed more "stable" in the 70's is an insane amount
of historical ignorance though. The 70s did teach us that political engagement
was essentially a lost cause, and we need another way to make progress. I'm
not sure getting Carter makes up for Thatcher and Reagan's follow up
destruction.

~~~
siculars
Stable in the 70s? I keep hearing this but I don't buy it. Rolling off of
Vietnam. The oil crisis. Inflation. Decimation of manufacturing.

I wasn't around then but we're they actually good?

~~~
anexprogrammer
I was fairly young, so didn't have huge awareness of oil crisis, as i didn't
drive until the 80s. Slightly tongue in cheek here...

The bad:

Constant strikes, works to rule, sympathetic strikes (miners going out in
sympathy with the rail works and other such silliness), having to be bailed
out by the IMF, three day week and doing homework by candle light due to
electric strikes. Horrific fashions and decor. So much bad music! Godawful
food - this was when the UK earned the reputtion for terrible food, and it was
well deserved. thankfully we're well out the other side of that reputation.
High inflation if you were a saver. I recall my childhood saving account
paying 16% one year! Tech was a calculator, a record player and a speak and
spell. The internet was having a penfriend!

The good:

Simpler expectations, no great media missions to have government "do
something" after every minor crime and accident. No 24hr news so little chance
of hearing about the 1:1,000,000,000 crime that took place 500 miles away.
Terrorism existed, but didn't result in wholesale change of the way we lived.
"They won't change our way of life" was the usual refrain rather than "we need
a war on terror"[1]. As a householder, _high interest rates._ Yes really. As a
worker it led to regular, large, wage rises - often perceived to be good
whatever your stance on the economics. After 3 years at 15%+ the mortgage you
made a huge stretch to take has reduced to affordable. After ten or fifteen
years its become pocket money. The house was a much lower multiple of wage to
start with. After all that you still got tax relief on mortgages (abolished in
the 90s). Final pay pensions. Job security, even if you were a manual worker.
Your 15yo wasn't demanding an iPhone 6 to replace her iPhone 5 as it's SO much
better! (Meanwhile I still used the Nexus 4).

~~~
Domenic_S
> _the mortgage you made a huge stretch to take has reduced to affordable_

Yeahhhhhh but don't forget interest on that 30-year fixed was 12%+!

~~~
anexprogrammer
UK mortgages are usually variable, going up and down with changes in interest
rates. You can fix, but often for just the first 5 years. Then switch to a
different mortgage if you want another 5 or 10 years fixed. Is it usual to fix
for full term in the US?

With lower interest rates these days fixing is much more common than it was.

~~~
ethbro
US has a variety of mortgage products, but yes, a fixed rate amortized over 30
years is pretty standard.

There are 5/1 ARMs and the like that are more similar to what you describe,
but most rates are locked.

------
losteverything
I think it's an age thing. Older dudes like me have "been there done that"
with fear and uncertainty. In the seventies I had my first "wow" events
(corrupt gov't "I am not a crook"; Japan making cars; Iran hostages) and
thought there was no future. But as an old guy I know the future is better as
it always has been. The younger people are only going through their first
adult view of the world as newbie thinkers

It's like handling death. The first few times you suck at handling it and
after many deaths of family and acquantinces it becomes very unscary. You
become confident in want to say, etc

------
btkramer9
"But people now in their 20s and 30s say that the 1960s were different, that
there seemed to be a clearer goal then — to end racial segregation, poverty or
the war. The economy seemed better and the nation’s future more assured."

As someone in my 20s this is very frustrating. Obviously things from the 60s
seem clearer now; hindsight is 20-20. Then there's this:

"Many are terrified of debt and deeply worried about their economic future"

I view this as a good thing. Debt is not fun and should be worrisome.
Especially in the US where it's socially acceptable to carry mounds of debt.

~~~
keyboardhitter
> I view this as a good thing. Debt is not fun and should be worrisome.
> Especially in the US where it's socially acceptable to carry mounds of debt.

I feel the same way. The Fear encourages me to save money and evaluate my
spending habits. (I'm also in my 20s.)

------
jseliger
Having spent a lot of time in Seattle I'm skeptical of the article; that being
said, to my mind the big issue is housing costs, as I describe in "Do
millennials have a future in Seattle? Do millennials have a future in any
superstar cities?" ([http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-
futu...](http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-future-in-
seattle-do-millennials-have-a-future-in-any-superstar-cities/)). If you lower
costs enough, a lot of other things become possible, and a lot of issues
become less important ([http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2016/08/poverty-
reduction-c...](http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2016/08/poverty-reduction-
cost-of-living-center-for-neighborhood-technology/494348)).

When I last lived in Seattle full time, the city was a relative bargain and
was known for being cool and fun yet affordable. But it hasn't built enough
housing to keep up with demand, and while it does better than CA
([http://www.vox.com/2015/12/23/10657690/seattle-housing-
crisi...](http://www.vox.com/2015/12/23/10657690/seattle-housing-crisis)),
it's still not good enough. That's the crux of the issue, and it's why so many
people are moving to Texas: Houston, Dallas, and Austin all have relatively
liberal building regimes, which means housing is not a perpetual crisis.

~~~
ghaff
Housing is certainly a part of it based on people I speak with. A certain
demographic--which is mostly an educated subset of 20-35 year olds who tend to
write articles/posts and/or know those who do--have decided that they
absolutely must live in a reasonable neighborhood of one of a handful of urban
locations.

As a result, a relative handful of cities have become what many parts of
Manhattan, for example, have been for a long time. Essentially luxury goods.

Building regimes is also part of it but housing stock, and associated
infrastructure, tends to increase over longer timeframes than the current
urban living fad took to develop.

~~~
collyw
I would quite happily live in the mountains but there aren't any IT jobs
there. Its seems difficult to get a remote working job.

I imagine it is the same for many jobs - you need to live in a city.

~~~
ghaff
You do often need to live in the vicinity of a city. However, in most cases
(the Bay area being something of an exception), there's plenty of reasonably
priced housing within commuting distance of large cities. (And, in fact, many
of the jobs are not even in the urban cores anyway.)

In the Boston area for example, most of the computer-related jobs are not
actually in the city and there is plenty of reasonably priced housing within
45-60 minutes of the city.

~~~
collyw
Yes, but I did say the mountains, not the suburbs. There is stuff (for me) to
do in the mountains. I would rather pay the extra rent to live in a city
rather than the suburbs.

~~~
ghaff
Sure. If you have the money, by all means live wherever you prefer. However,
this discussion started around the idea that many people feel they have to
live in the vicinity of a city, in part because of employment, but then don't
want to rent/buy in less expensive neighborhoods--including suburbs. That's a
choice/preference.

------
nickbauman
A "broken political system", please. Like Syria? Most of the Arab Spring? Even
Brexit? There are people literally laying down their lives to get an
opportunity to participate in such a "broken" system as ours in the US. If you
don't like the system, work to change it. In the US at least you won't go to
jail for doing that. Good grief!

~~~
pnathan
As near as I can tell, the complaints of 'broken' come from people who don't
participate. People who participate _somehow_ seem to find ways to get some
change in their desired direction.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
But _always_ less change than they wanted, for all participants, for all
directions of desired change. Some view that as the reality of politics - it
involves compromise with others of different views. And some others view that
as the system being corrupt, because it refused to listen to their desires.

While the system is less responsive than it should be, while there are
elements of corruption, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the "take my ball
and go home" whiners.

~~~
pnathan
> Some view that as the reality of politics - it involves compromise with
> others of different views.

I've really aligned myself with this viewpoint the more I work in the
corporate world. Things are a compromise, always. Purity is found in
mathematics and, sometimes, theology.

I also think there's room for a certain level of what is called corruption:
it's important to allow for judgement and slop, people who aren't facially
qualified, but through a few connections getting them work can demonstrate
that they really ARE qualified and capable.

------
nostrebored
I love how everyone thinks that issues were clear in the past. Racism, anti-
war efforts -- we still have those going on today. And if you think that
they're any less clear now than they were then, you have your head in the
sand. If you think that we don't have issues that need action now -- police
brutality, women's rights, etc. -- then you probably wouldn't have been a part
of the desegregation movement in the early 60s either.

~~~
Bartweiss
I think there's a level where this is true though - clarity of _target_ , not
_issue_.

When racism looked like Jim Crow, it was straightforward to say "repeal Jim
Crow". Deciding on tactics was complicated, making it happen was hard, but
there was a clear goal in mind. Taking on an issue like police accountability
or pay inequity is much fuzzier - there's no law to change or villain to
conquer.

None of which means there weren't fuzzy issues in the past, too. But I think
the 'nostalgia' for the issues of the past is often for clear targets like
suffrage and school integration.

------
niftich
Though the article is an enjoyable read, it makes the same basic points as
many of the "about millennials" articles of the last five years:
20-to-30-somethings are flocking to places of economic opportunity like
Seattle, but are worried about cost-of-living, debt/loans, lack of government
safety nets, crime (and a segue into worries about terror), uhh....
genetically modified crops.... uhhh... the list goes on. Isn't this consistent
with 'coming of age' and trying to make it on your own?

The point is, I'm a millennial, I guess (I'm younger than the 31-year-old the
article focuses on, and I have no idea anymore what the term 'millennial'
actually means besides 'young person'), and these are anxieties that I share.
But they don't prevent me from living a normal, relatively uneventful life in
the US.

Part of growing up is realizing that even when you work hard, success can be
elusive, that in the US the government generally does not have your back, and
your well-being is entirely a function of your effort, luck, and
circumstances. _Not_ to discount their importance, but the issues of the day
will vary: equal rights regardless of color in the 1960s, equal rights
regardless of sexual identity in the 2010s; proxy wars in the 1970s, terrorism
since ... (I lied, terrorism has always been around).

The future is uncertain, and we're constantly trying to juggle our resources
among our hierarchy of needs of our own immediate needs vs. the good of the
community, of people like us, of people different from us, of our national
security and 'way of life', of our planet; but the only thing new is that we
'millennials' are new to it.

------
keyboardhitter
I tried to avoid reading this article because of its headline but I gave in
this morning.

These generalizations about Millennials are strange to me. I see over and over
again in popular media that Millennials are in a rut, and things aren't fair
because of a foundation that was laid, that we need to reform politics and
make things fair for everyone, abolish debt, give college value, and et
cetera.

I see all of this coverage and I am confused because I can't relate to it. I'm
definitely biased. Did I just get lucky or something? Am I a part of the
problem? Is this issue really so common or is it just being exaggerated for
pageviews all over the Internet?

Context: I am a Millennial, born after 1990. Grew up in poverty on the east
coast US. I moved to Seattle last year and I'm making very good money as a
systems engineer. I didn't go to college, I've just worked my way through jobs
in the last few years since graduating high school.

I am daunted by terror and politics just like many other people. I have
questions, and I want things to change, too. But I feel like my voice in the
community, my opinions, and my fears don't matter because I am not struggling
enough, or I make too much money, or that I'm promoting gentrification just by
existing. Obviously, these things aren't true. Yet I find myself avoiding
discussion about work, money, and the tech industry when I go out for beers
with people around my age.

What a frustrating culture. I feel discouraged to say things like, "Becoming
self-sufficient is NOT impossible!" It's very difficult but not impossible. I
also feel like I should keep my success to myself, and that talking about my
success is taboo or offensive to others somehow. Again, obviously not true.
Maybe I just need to go outside more and read less articles / commentaries to
see if this dichotomy even exists.

~~~
pnathan
hello fellow seattleite!

------
Kenji
Or maybe stop reading news like that and enjoy life in one of the safest times
and countries with life expectancies at an all-time high in the entire human
history. Take a step back and look at things on a larger scale. Don't nurture
your neuroticism and anxiety.

~~~
mywittyname
It's hard not to feed on fear when the media is a buffet full of it.

~~~
ta0967
Just Say No (to mass media fearmongers). give your tv set to somebody you
really dislike.

------
seiferteric
The article mentions climate change, but I don't think puts enough importance.
Really the other stuff does not bother me too much because it has all happened
before and we have solutions. Meanwhile climate change marches on and we
barely talk about it (relative to how important it is). To me it feels so
important that I often find it hard to find meaning and enjoyment in my job
because I know it is not going to help the climate change situation in any
way, and there are few jobs out there that will. All the other issues and
"problems" tech companies try to solve seem like rearranging deck chairs on
the titanic.

~~~
bytefactory
Keep in mind that you're one of the very small percentage of people that _can_
help humanity when it comes to global warming. Your being on HN suggests that
you are probably in the small proportion of people that have the abilities and
resources that can affect change.

Working to save money will give you resources that will let you participate in
the decision making process. For example, let's consider a situation where you
have $10000 that you would like to use to help. You could donate it to an
effective charity, invest in Tesla, use it to lobby local government, buy
solar panels, etc.

That means your job is actually _enormously_ meaningful!

------
MrZongle2
Another article that bemoans the fate of Millennials, compares them with the
Baby Boomers....and somehow ignores the fact that there was a generation
between them.

Gen-Xers, anyone?

~~~
s_q_b
They're the ones who mortgaged our future and blew up the global economy for
short term gain.

They're also the ones writing these articles.

~~~
nickbauman
Painting with much too broad a brush. I did no such thing.

~~~
s_q_b
All discussions of entire generations paint with too broad a brush. We're
having a discussion in aggregate, not targeted at you personally.

Edit in reply:

The _entire article_ is about painting millennials with a broad brush, written
by a member of Generation X. Now you complain _you 're_ being stereotyped?

Give me a break.

~~~
yarrel
You're the ones performing this erasure and making this generalisation.

I don't mean you personally, I mean you.

------
ryanmarsh
Am I alone in my ambivalence to this narrative? I'm trying to be sympathetic
but the cohort which is the focus of this article is better off than most of
the planet. Sure, they have struggles. Most of us bemoan our station in life.

The kids will be fine.

------
havetocharge
No one owes anyone anything, and most people featured in and reading this
article are already incredibly privileged. But it's never enough, someone
always has or had it better and life is just so not fair. More whining for
things we 'deserve'.

------
gm-conspiracy
Somebody mentioned a few days ago some rural areas outside of Portland with
co-op fiber in gigabit speeds...

Can anybody comment on the location of these areas and travel time to Seattle?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Portland-Seattle is 3 hours one way. You might not want that as a commute.

~~~
gm-conspiracy
I want to occasionally visit the cities, but work remotely from home.

------
trentmb
From yesterday:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313808](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313808)

------
dmfdmf
Not enough sunlight.

------
FussyZeus
The 70's were seen as stable because no American's knew anything about what
was happening worldwide. Being connected to pretty much any human on the
planet is a really new concept, what we call our "community" has grown
exponentially in size, distance, and diversity in the last decade.

The world has always been this scary, now we're just paying attention.

~~~
Bartweiss
> The world has always been this scary, now we're just paying attention.

I see this a lot, and I'm never convinced. Something like the "flash crash"
was impossible a decade ago, much less a century. I wouldn't claim that the
world has gotten _worse_ , but the capacity for rapid, unpredictable change
has never been higher.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yeah, I think there are two factors at play here. One is definitely the near-
realtime worldwide media coverage.

But the other is the fact that the same events you hear about living on the
other side of the world can affect your life almost as fast as the news
spread. If you had just the media of today in a world of 500 years ago, you'd
worry only about your nearest neighbour cities and countries. Today, living in
Europe, I hear that bankers in the US fucked something up again big time, and
I start to wonder if I'll have my job - or any food - next week. That's how
the global economy is interconnected. I also worry I may one day wake up and
find my city in flames, with the Marines giving us practical workshops on how
to run a democracy right.

(And to not single out US here - I was scared shitless when the whole
Russia/Ukraine thing started, because I was afraid my country will be next,
and "next" here means "at any time, under 24 hours from when someone makes a
decision".)

