
Profiles of the Jobless: The 'Mad As Hell' Millennial Generation - miraj
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/profiles-of-the-jobless-the-mad-as-hell-millennial-generation/244552/
======
geebee
Part of the problem is that we're in a transitional phase where each
generation can look forward or back and see privilege or entitlement in the
other. As more of a Gen X'er myself, I think I was part of an early transition
that has picked up a lot of steam over the past two decades.

When I graduated from college (early 90s), there was still a lot of talk about
how the old contract (you work for a company your whole life and they show you
loyalty in return) was in decline. Truth is, it was probably in its last
gasps. Now, I have a hard time thinking any 20 year old graduate would even
think this arrangement exists in the first place. Young people still seem to
have a few expectations ("I did everything I was supposed to do...", but I'd
say the notion that going to college sets up for a good job is going extinct
among recent grads).

This is an incredibly important distinction that is often lost between the
boomers and millennials. Sure, Millennials may not want to work from 8-5, and
that may make them look lazy to the older folks - but keep in mind, the
stability of an 8-5 job isn't there for them.

If someone wanted a career in software back when I was in college, I'd have
recommended that they study computer science or a related degree, work hard,
get good grades, try to get an internship, maybe go to a good grad school, and
show a lot of diligence on the job. That's still a reasonable way to go about
it.

But now? My advice to someone looking for a software career is: write
something! Got an idea? Implement it, get it on the web, try to get some users
for it. If you don't have a good idea, talk with people, learn about other
fields, see what people need and try to create it for them. It's cheap to
fail, so fail fast and keep at it. I'm not saying you shouldn't major in CS or
go to grad school - a lot of great hackers (by the standards I listed above)
seem to take that path. But what I'd really recommend is recognizing that the
instability you have inherited can be liberating, even if it means you'll have
to deal with a lot more uncertainty in your life.

Funny thing is, it was there for me, too. I wrote all kinds of web apps in
grad school, but I somehow couldn't wrap my head around the idea that they
could be "real". I think PG mentioned this in an essay - when you open the
door to a cage for an animal that has lived in captivity for a long time, it
often takes a while before the animal realizes that it can leave. Maybe people
are waking up to that now. Nobody's going to be delivering carrots and filling
up your water bowl every morning anyway...

~~~
cdjarrell
It's true the workplace is transitioning, just not as fast as the type of work
being done. Everything is becoming more personalized, faster and more
efficient. We (for the most part) don't expect to stay at a company for 20+
years or even 10 years because everything is changing so fast.

It would be great if the workplace transitioned at the same speed as the work
involved, but this can't be expected. We need jobs that fulfill our own
personal career goals (rather than us adjusting them to fit the career), that
can be worked on intermittently throughout the day (to take full advantage of
our ever-shortening attention spans) and that have opportunities for growth
(as we work in a dynamic world now).

------
pnathan
I think it's time to face up to the fact that the guiding advice for 30? 50?
years of, "keep your head down, go to college, get good grades, you'll get a
good job" is practically dead.

Now, I advise these things:

* go to college - you need to go to college because it's the best way to get a wide education.

* get a degree - this needs to be in something very difficult for people to do. Math. Engineering. Accounting.

* expect that your future job will not make you happy. Presume you'll hate it a bit. Concurrently, realize that your life is more than your job.

* go to internships and find local networking events. Learn to drink responsibly.

* save money. You probably have to take out student loans. Don't be afraid to put money by from them, because you will need to do things like move, buy a car, pay for car bills.

* assume you have to move to get a job. Most jobs are going to be a place not in your college town. Get used to the idea. (Aside: I've known many people who go to college near their parents, and don't want to leave the area, just because they want to be near their family. That's not a productive idea. You are your own person. Invest into _your_ future by finding a job you like, even if it's a country away).

* grades matter to some people. I've been turned down solely on the basis of my GPA. Accept that if you don't have a 3.9+, you didn't jump high enough for some people, _and there's no way to get around that_. Either get the high GPA or find hiring people who don't obsess about that single metric.

* learn business. Business is what pays your bills, if you know something about it, you'll understand the 'why' into seemingly irrational decisions.

------
cdjarrell
According to the Strauss-Howe generational theory
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss-
Howe_generational_theor...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss-
Howe_generational_theory)), Millenials are a Hero generation. We grew up in an
"increasingly protected post-Awakening" era of parental coddling and are now
coming of age during a "team-oriented young optimists during a Crisis". The
crisis is here and it is severely draining on our generation as a whole. But
we are not going to get beaten by it and the only way to combat it is with
perseverance.

One of the best ways to shorten this particular recession is through
innovation. As employment numbers have been dropping, companies have been
evolving by consolidating the missing roles and generally becoming more
efficient. We need to meet this increase in efficiency with a greater number
of attempts at innovating today's status quo. That's one of the best benefits
of Y Combinator.

It's going to take a lot of hard work but luckily grit is regarded as one of
the best traits of successful people
([http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/what-is-success-
tr...](http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/what-is-success-true-grit/)).
While it's true we have one of the toughest outlooks in recent memory, that
just means we have that many more possibilities to improve upon. There is so
much talent out there right now that is not being properly utilized that it
could supply a couple of entirely new industries. Innovation will get us there
but not after we stumble a couple of times on the way up.

It's time for us to get together, use our collaborative abilities and solve
the world's growing areas of concern of today for everyone tomorrow.

#millenialmanifesto

~~~
nazgulnarsil
reminiscent of _The Decline of the West_. Such theories should be taken with
the grain of salt that they are mostly descriptive, not prescriptive. At the
very best they produce qualitative predictions which aren't of much use.

~~~
sedev
Actually, that's one of the reasons Strauss & Howe are a big deal - they did
make some fairly specific predictions, and invited people to hold them
accountable for those.

------
rbranson
The greatest delusion of our world is the idea that there is actually a job
for everyone. I have an unsubstantiated, but very real gut feeling that the
economic crisis was the tipping point in which humanity moves beyond anything
resembling full employment.

~~~
ovi256
From a production viewpoint, that's certainly possible for several sectors.
World agriculture produces enough food that every human could have a 2700
calorie diet, which is excessive for sedentary occupations.

So which is the sin here, that some people die of hunger or that others die of
obesity ?

~~~
JonnieCache
The sin is in the coexistence of these two circumstances.

------
gallerytungsten
Rather than comment directly on the article, I'm going to give my advice on
How To Get A Job Right Now.

1\. Decide what you want to do. Don't say "I'll do anything." Be extremely
specific about the type of job you want. (You can change your mind, but again,
NEVER say you'll do "anything." That translates as "has no useful skills.")

2\. Locate companies in your area that employ for this position.

3\. Start making phone calls and sending emails to the company owner or
manager. Forget about responding to ads for jobs and sending resumes blindly.
That doesn't work. (Many ads are placed for compliance purposes or fishing
expeditions and thus do not correspond to an actual job on offer.)

4\. The really important part. Every time you get a "no" get a referral or
two. Keep expanding your call list via referrals.

5\. Within 100 phones calls, you will have a job. Make every call sincere and
productive and you might only need to make 20.

------
grammarnazi
These letters are positively heart-wrenching, indeed. Really, what does _my_
college degree mean, if the person possessing it can't be trusted to
understand the difference between "it's" and "its," or "there" and "they're"?

Sad state of affairs indeed.

~~~
bmj
This is hardly a new problem. I served as a TA in various humanities courses
roughly 17 years ago, learning that many, many college students could not
write coherent sentences, let alone use proper punctuation.

------
esk
Considering the tone of these letters (especially the last one—wow!), it's a
bit difficult to summon empathy with their authors.

And I think that's unfortunate, because they have an _exceedingly_ valid
point—American universities are making a _killing_ churning out graduates with
very few relevant skills for today's economy.

That's not to say these students are completely innocent—many, many American
students view college as their "last gasp" of living without any real
responsibilities, and they make make the most of _that_ opportunity (rather
than making the most of the opportunity to better themselves and prepare for
today's economy).

Now and forever, using only the internet, it's possible to learn... well,
nearly everything. Once employers accept this, the cost of a degree will
plummet, and universities will be forced to offer something _well beyond_ what
Wikipedia, web forums, and online instructional videos can provide. That's the
only way they'll stay relevant and worth the investment. I think the
universities can do it, but they are going to fight tooth and nail to avoid
having to change.

All large institutions do.

~~~
epistasis
Regarding the last letter, I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg with
regards to generational hatred for the Baby Boomers. Inheriting such a
structurally messed up government and economy will not leave a good taste in
people's mouth, and as times get desperate, having to pay large Social
Security and Medicare entitlements to a generation that stopped investing in
the future will become more and more questionable.

~~~
tallanvor
I hate how people have latched onto using the term "entitlements" to discuss
Social Security and Medicare and always say/write it as if it's a bad thing.

Social Security and Medicare are earned benefits. People pay into the system
through payroll taxes so that they receive a benefit based on the length of
time they paid into the system and their salary. Much like a 401k or an IRA,
the money is invested (albeit in government debt at low interest rates), and
even now (well, maybe not with that idiotic payroll tax break they enacted)
more money is going in than coming out.

~~~
anamax
> Social Security and Medicare are earned benefits.

"Earned" maybe, but the relevant question is the relationship between the
payments and the benefits. For some folks, it's a good/great return. For
others, it's a lousy return.

> the money is invested (albeit in government debt at low interest rates), and
> even now (well, maybe not with that idiotic payroll tax break they enacted)
> more money is going in than coming out.

The problem is that current cash flow isn't the right way to determine whether
such schemes are economically sound.

For example, Ponzi schemes have good cash flow initially.

The right way involves balancing the current "contributions" against the NPV
of the benefits "promised".

No, I'm not saying that SS is a Ponzi scheme. No one is forced to participate
in a Ponzi scheme and the only folks who lose money in a Ponzi scheme are
folks who bought into the promise.

~~~
diogenescynic
"The beauty of social insurance is that it is actually unsound. Everyone who
reaches retirement age is given benefit privelleges that far exceed anything
he has paid in...How is it possible? It stems from the fact that the national
product is growing at compound interest ... More important, with real incomes
going up at some 3% per year, the taxable base on which ebenfits rest in any
period are much greater than the taxes paid historically by the generation now
retired.

Social security is squarely based on what has been called the eighth wonder of
the world--compound interest. A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi game ever
contrived."-- Paul Samuelson

~~~
anamax
Except that demographics change. We've known that the demograhics were going
to make SS untenable for decades.

> Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privelleges that far
> exceed anything he has paid in

That's not actually true of folks who max.

------
miraj
somewhat tangential notes:

"Are jobs obsolete?" <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2986501>

------
abduhl
These articles are depressing to me but for entirely different reasons from
those listed in this and the thread on the previous article. They show a
severe case of entitlement and a large disconnect between what the writers
want and what they're worth.

Common complaints amongst these letters fall into three categories:

1\. "I was tricked into going to an expensive college"

2\. "Other people screwed around but happened to network while I was busy
studying all the time"

3\. "I've been screwed over by the previous generation for reasons x, y, and z
(usually debt, taxes, and the rich getting richer)"

All of these complaints are rather childish and point towards other people
being the problem. Out of all of the letters, very few accept any blame and
those that do are quick to deflect it with a "yes, but" type statement that
leads into argument 1, 2, or 3.

You are not entitled to a job. A degree no longer sets you apart and the cost
of college is the price of doing business in the world today in most large
industries. You need to differentiate yourself in today's world and, more
importantly, you need to be adaptable. Learning doesn't stop when you get your
degree.

~~~
tick80
It always disappoints me when I hear that point number two is such a
successful tactic. I have read quite a few books from people in influential
positions, and even today it's mostly not "what you know" but "who you know".

You can be an alcoholic with other serious drug addiction problems, and yet
powerful positions are dropped onto your lap because that very alcoholism
rewards you with the best networking opportunities.

It just fuels the image that is presented to us by the likes of reality TV and
gossip magazines.

~~~
rick888
"It always disappoints me when I hear that point number two is such a
successful tactic. I have read quite a few books from people in influential
positions, and even today it's mostly not "what you know" but "who you know"

Networking has been fundamental to jobs because humans are mostly social
animals. People always complain about this, but with the Internet, you can
network with more people than you ever could in the past, making it easier to
get your foot in the door.

I didn't have a network when I got out of college, so I made one. I now have
friends and acquaintances that I can call if I'm ever out of a job. I won't
get the job immediately, but it will at least help me an interview.

It's not difficult to do this, you just need to be friendly and social with
people in your industry.

------
helipad
Whilst clearly there is a sense of entitlement, colleges do nothing to dispel
the myth that going to a good school == good job at the end.

When you're 18 and having to make a decision about your future, university has
proven time and again a wise investment. It's only in recent years that a
university education has shown not to always be the best investment, almost
certainly due to the devaluing of a degree.

------
rdl
I didn't see any engineers, mathematicians, or scientists in that list...

~~~
potatolicious
My brother is a scientist - a damned good one at that. He's scraping by in an
academic research position making well below the poverty line.

He's unmarried, frugal and has few expectations (well, years as a student in
the sciences prepares you for that), so he's managing well under the
circumstances. I do know though that it bothers him that his parents are
paying for his $500 flight back to visit during Christmas. He's nearly 30.

Engineers are doing alright - but scientists have not done well for a _long,
long_ time. It's cut-throat, employment is anything but sure, and even if you
have a job, good salaries are few and far between. And every year the output
from colleges continues to _far_ outstrip positions available.

~~~
rdl
Presumably he could use a science degree and mathematical mind to get a higher
paying job in industry, tech, etc. If he values research more than money, that
makes sense too, but I would think he has more options than these people.

~~~
rjd
No science is historical a place of people working in poverty for the love of
the job. I myself did a degree in Microbiology and started working at a
research lab as an assistant.

One thing caught me very quickly, people I worked with, some of the leading
geneticists on the planet.. I'm talking about people who where splicing human
DNA in animals to cure Parkinson's... where earning minimum wage.

These people literally fought for basic funding, maybe they got a million
dollar cheque, but boy that had to last, if the results didn't come through or
you got 80% of the way there, there was no second cheque. Failing to deliver
could also cost you further funding. So everyone was accounting for every
cent, and there was no spending on anything extravagant.

The head of my department wrote some of the text books I read through high
school, thats how he made his living, he earned maybe $10k more than the rest
of the scientists but that was still next to nothing.

The only perk was a contract we had testing wine for pesticides. Which meant
taking a 5ml sample from each bottle of wine and prepping it for testing. We
literally had a shed full of wine which a research centre of several hundred
scientists couldn't drink fast enough :)

I was told by one scientist you had around 15 years to make a breakthrough and
then it was more or less over. You trained till you where 30 to get a PHD so
you could get funding, worked till you where in your 40s, then started writing
text books, being a manager, or a teacher/professor.

Decided I didn't have the constitution for a life like that and retrained as
an artist and some how ended up a programmer. I could have always moved in the
commercial of being a food technician or something, OK money doing that, but
its crap work... unless you are inventing new ice cream flavours... otherwise
you are more or less loading samples into a machine and waiting for the
results... overkill for a scientist really.

~~~
wisty
So why don't scientists get other jobs in the private sector?

People with Arts degrees don't whinge about the lack of "Historian" positions,
they just get jobs where they can utilize their amazing skills at churning out
5000 word faux-essays about why their cherry-picked positive paragraphs
outnumber the negative paragraphs they threw in for "balance" (arts hater,
sorry, but haters gotta hate). Maybe they are HR officers, or Marketing
Stooges, or Strategic Analysts, or Project Officers, or even Software
Engineers.

There seems to be an utterly moronic disconnect betweens science students who
want a job with "research" in the title, and businesses who don't want to
reach out to smart, hard-working, honest candidates.

Science students do have skills - the ability to read massive amounts of
technically difficult work (for example, research articles, government
regulations), math skills, statistics skills, and a deep understanding of
physical and / or biological processes.

I understand that they don't want to head-hunt full professors into C-level
positions, but surely there's some scope for people crossing over.

I mean, does anyone really think that science grads are less business ready
than business grads, and if so, why?

~~~
jballanc
What private sector jobs would you recommend? When I started graduate school
studying Biochemistry, a job in the pharmaceutical industry was a credible
alternative to academic research. Today, the pharmaceutical industry is
hurting, with hiring freezes on nearly everywhere, mass layoffs following
giant mergers, and all the while being maligned by the press and the public as
over-charging money-grubbers. In short, the pharmaceutical industry is bust
(most people just don't realize it yet).

> I mean, does anyone really think that science grads are less business ready
> than business grads, and if so, why?

Yes, yes, a million times yes. A science education includes _absolutely no
training_ in finance, management, organization, public speaking, etc. While it
is true that there are scientists who are great at public speaking or
business, in almost all cases these individuals were good in those areas
_before_ they became educated in science. Furthermore, in my time working in
research, I've come to appreciate that science graduates are absolute luddites
in every realm of technology that is not directly involved in their own
research. Anecdotally, I've watched researchers working on promising cures for
Parkinson's have trouble logging into their Windows XP machine and others
working on cancer-fighting nanoparticles unable to connect a printer to print
their manuscripts.

Basic research can never compete in a capitalist economy because the profits
of most research activities are realized on time scales greater than an
individual lifetime and there is no monetary incentive (only altruistic
incentives) to invest in something that will only pay out when you're dead.

~~~
wisty
>>> A science education includes absolutely no training in finance,
management, organization, public speaking, etc.

So? Scientists often tackle problems that they don't have training in.

There seems to be 2 parts to the myth:

1) Scientists aren't suitable for business. I think this is crap.
Mathematicians can do engineering and financial stuff, just not the final
sign-off (which requires a licensed professional). Ecologists can analyse a
company's strategic position, based on stuff like competition, symbiosis, and
other buzz words that _they actually understand_. Psychologists could work in
marketing. This is true for many pure research areas. It's may not be so true
for applied research, like biochemistry - a lot of that could be very domain
specific, but the tools they use could be applied elsewhere (if the number of
graduates and number of research jobs doesn't match).

2) Scientists are doing more valuable work, they just aren't being rewarded.
This is sometimes true, but sometimes not.

------
michaelochurch
I'm glad our generation is getting "mad as hell" rather than depressed and
glum. It's about time to understand that life is a fight. If you're lucky like
most of us in technology, you struggle for relevance rather than survival, but
it's a fight nonetheless. Work very hard, anticipate conflict, and do the
right thing even if it hurts.

First, the claim that we're "entitled" is an old saw. Whenever a downtrodden
group (not that Millennials are "downtrodden" in absolute terms, but in
relative terms we are, as a group, quite unfortunate) starts asserting itself,
the first thing the opposition does is claim that it's "uppity", "impatient",
and "entitled". The second thing it does is focus on extreme examples-- man-
hating "feminazis" instead of mainstream, reasonable feminists, frank perverts
instead of normal LGBT people, racial nationalists like Garvey instead of
King, spoiled upper-middle-class 22-year-olds refusing perfectly decent entry-
level jobs-- as an excuse for ignoring the more numerous moderates who have a
compelling moral point.

Next, I think it's useful to delve into a political philosophy that's endemic
among our generation. Personally, I'm a libertarian. A left-libertarian. A
true libertarian. For philosophical and theological reasons, I believe the
objective of society is to maximize individual liberty, health, and creative
freedom and that this often involves (preferably lightweight) "socialist"
measures, but that small government is better than large (in the same way that
500 LoC to deliver the same functionality as 20,000 LoC is superior). As soon
as full employment becomes untenable (and it looks like that may be the case)
basic income programs are in order.

All this said, there needs to be examination of the difference between
_absolute_ and _relative_ rights, because this is where right-libertarians
(the ones who currently use the name, "libertarian") embarrass themselves and
our society (cf. healthcare). There are very few absolute rights. One is the
right not to be murdered, but there is no "absolute right to life" (God will
deny me that "right", and though I hope my death doesn't come too soon, I'm
glad that it will someday happen). Another is the unconditional right to
refuse sexual contact for any reason. That's an absolute right: not to be
raped. A third is the right not to be coerced to work, except in life-
threatening circumstances. Food, shelter, healthcare are not absolute rights.
They are _relative_ rights, contingent on the resources available. If food is
plentiful, then everyone (even "useless" people like, I don't know, myself 28
years ago when I was 18 inches tall) has the right not to go hungry. If we are
stranded where is no food, a "right to food" makes no sense because there is
no food available. All this said, _relative rights are just as morally
meaningful as absolute ones_.

The people currently called "libertarians" (i.e. right-libertarians) focus on
the absolute rights that apply anywhere, even in 476 AD in Bavaria or 1849 in
Death Valley or 2075 in outer space, and not on the relative ones that depend
on social infrastructure. It's rugged individualism. This is a severe mistake.
Those relative rights are just as important.

This seems like a digression, but it's extremely meaningful. If our generation
can be characterized, I'd say that we're intensely _libertarian_ , but we tend
(on average) toward left-libertarianism that looks a lot like liberalism.
We've seen that social conservatism is a moral disaster, but also that big
government doesn't always work. Differences between us and the older style of
liberalism are (a) that we're more practical, willing to rally behind a
centrist presidential candidate if he's obviously an intelligent and good
human being, (b) we're extremely skeptical of governments and we're fiscally
conservative as a result, (c) we have a _world_ focus and don't buy into it
when someone tries to tell us we're special because we were born on a certain
patch of land, (d) in general, we're anti-war, having seen the immense loss
(of life, and of finances) that occurs when people are too quick to pursue
violent action.

~~~
phren0logy
> If food is plentiful, then everyone (even "useless" people like, I don't
> know, myself 28 years ago when I was 18 inches tall) has the right not to go
> hungry. If we are stranded where is no food, a "right to food" makes no
> sense because there is no food available.

When you are 18 inches tall, you were incapable of work. Are you suggesting
that if someone is capable of work, but elects not to work, then others should
provide that person food, shelter, etc?

edit: Why the down-vote? I am honestly asking for clarification on this view.

~~~
michaelochurch
What about all those 8-year-olds who are capable of work, but do not? Should
we be sending them back into chimneys?

~~~
phren0logy
That's a straw man. Let's say after high school / age 18.

------
corin_
Slightly off-topic question, how many people got the Paddy Chayefsky reference
and how many didn't (and therefore presumably assumed that bit wwas just a
direct description)?

------
andos
There are a lot of challenging, rewarding, generously remunerated jobs
_outside_ of the United States.

------
kitsune_
The underlying theme of the millennial generation is a sense of entitlement.

A lot of people live under the illusion that their college degree is an
accurate indicator of their intelligence and entitles them to enormous sums of
money. Well, gee? How is that supposed to work out for every one? Were you one
of the smart guys back in primary school? Or where you merely one of the
average students? Why do you think that with 24 years of age you should earn
100'000 a year?

And on the other end of the spectrum, if they don't have a degree many people
(rightly?) ask themselves why they should work so hard for so little. There is
no respect for manual labor any more. The dream that corporate America, Gossip
Girl and MTV is one of fast money, selfishness and greed.

~~~
mkr-hn
I keep hearing this, but I don't know anyone in my generation with a sense of
entitlement. You can't expect someone to drive down to McDonalds and ask for a
job right after graduating. But they will (and do) accept a worse job if it
comes down to it.

~~~
billswift
I don't think it is generational. I just turned 50 and have heard it, or
something similar, every few years about the current "younger" generation
(even back when I was part of the younger generation).

~~~
mkr-hn
I guess it's standard filler like the "[some kind of clothing] is back"
stories.

------
larrykubin
I'm getting a bit tired of these articles. They are all the same -- some kids
finish college, and don't have a job or many practical skills. It's not the
end of the world. Suck it up, keep learning, keep working. You don't have to
have it all figured out yet. There is still plenty of time.

I remember trying to find a tech job when I finished school in 2002 and didn't
have any luck. Worked for 10 bucks an hour for the next couple of years and
read a bunch of programming books to build skills. Another friend finished
with a CS degree who graduated at the same time answered phones for 12 bucks
an hour for a year or two. Another friend got an engineering degree and his
first job was working for the city for about 10 bucks an hour for a year or
two. Eventually we got more experience, talked to more people, and got exactly
what we wanted -- it just took a couple more years.

~~~
Hyena
No, in 2002 the US and Europe were in recession. That is why you had trouble
finding a job, not your skills or whatever else. That it took a couple of
years is incredibly bad and that recession was comparatively minor.

I think you don't know the trouble you've seen.

