
Don’t Mistake Ambition for Entitlement - pchristensen
http://mattmaroon.com/?p=573
======
timr
As the curmudgeons say: pride goeth before the fall.

I'm not saying that Matt is wrong, or that the WSJ is right, but this essay
was just a bit too... _precious_...for my tastes.

I don't have the answers, and I don't have much confidence in anything,
outside of myself. That said, if I _know_ one fact about the world, it's that
very few of the self-confident 22-year-olds that I meet are going to get rich
from their big brains and hard work. If history teaches us anything, it's that
most smart people will fail -- repeatedly and painfully. So, while it's not
the right time for the adults to shake their walkers at the children for
running on the lawn, perhaps it would be prudent for the kids to hold back on
the self-congratulatory essays, in anticipation of the day when it all goes
pear-shaped?

I'm not much older than Matt, but even I can detect a distinct generational
shift in attitude toward work; I know where the WSJ editorial is coming from,
even if I don't agree with its conclusions. And while I'm sure that the brash
20-somethings that I know _believe_ that self-investment and autonomy are the
keys to avoiding their parents' fate, that probably has more to do with the
abject failure of all previous models of work, than the proven success of this
one.

In ten years, some of you will be rich, successful and powerful. Most of you
-- despite all of your hard work and independence -- won't be. Which brings me
to another thing that the curmudgeons say: the more things change, the more
they stay the same. Youth and arrogance are eternal companions.

~~~
ph0rque
> In ten years, some of you will be rich, successful and powerful. Most of you
> -- despite all of your hard work and independence -- won't be.

So why spend 60 hours a week in a suit under fluorescent lights in an 8' x 8'
cube either way?

~~~
run4yourlives
One word: Security.

When you get married and have kids, you'll see how much more important that
word becomes.

~~~
tdavis
You treat it like a foregone conclusion that sooner or later we'll all be
married with children. I personally cannot think of a single logical reason
for bringing another human being into this world. Sounds like an easy way to
ruin a perfectly fun life.

~~~
run4yourlives
I didn't think so either in my early to mid twenties.

I'm not saying that everyone will have kids, but this whole discussion is
about generalities, and the consensus is that most people will have kids.

It doesn't get any wilder than the boomers, and more of them had kids than any
other generation previously.

~~~
smanek
You should look into the Bulverism Fallacy.

~~~
run4yourlives
You'd need to see negative TFR's
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate>)(<http://indexmundi.com/united_states/birth_rate.html>)
to even suggest that most people aren't having kids.

Sometimes, the obvious is exactly that.

------
dionidium
_It’s also largely intellectual activity, which is considerably more fatiguing
than routine physical tasks. Jobs in information technology might look a lot
easier than manual labor to an outside observer, but they’re not. Burnout sets
in much faster..._

Has Matt ever worked full-time in a factory or as a cashier at a busy grocery
store? Nobody is disputing that intellectual work is challenging, but most
physical labor involves a level of soul-sucking tedium and repetition that I'd
suspect anyone with a college-to-cubicle story can't even imagine.

I'd add that my experience is that these environments are also often ruled
with a totalitarianism that makes the worst office job look positively cozy.

~~~
mattmaroon
I was a cashier for two years at two different places, then was a checkout
supervisor for one. Ran a meat counter, worked the floor at a Sam's club and a
Home Depot, and ran a restaurant, all before the age of 22.

I'm no stranger to menial labor.

~~~
peakok
One day I was having a discussion with a cashier in my neighborhoord. A kind
woman in her fifties, who started this job before I was born. She used to be
always cheerful and serviable, but not on that particular day. The
conversation went like this :

"- What's going on ?"

"- I had an awful streak of horrible clients today, it really got me down"

"- Ah... Yes, I know what you're talking about, I used to be a cashier myself
at X last year and some clients were just unbearable, I understand your pain."

"- Sure, but I'm not quitting my job in 6 months."

"- ..."

I just read your bio on a poker site. I saw that The Big Lebowski is your
favorite movie. As someone a bit younger than you and who had his fair share
of dirty jobs as well, I suggest you to rewatch another Cohen brothers classic
: Barton Fink. Hell is not Hell when you're only a guest.

~~~
fallentimes
It's hard to know whether you're going to be a guest or not. Also, the cashier
you reference chose to be a permanent cashier. She's nothing more than the
product of her own decisions in response to the environment around her.

------
rgr
This essay is just silly. It makes it sound as if our generation is the first
to invent entrepreneurship. Millions of our parents' generation own their own
businesses. Entrepreneurship isn't a new discovery. My dad started a software
company in the 70s. He didn't have hacker news and y combinator. He wasn't
even in silicon valley. And guess what, he did have access to information.
Maybe he wasn't inundated by it like we are today, but sometimes I question
the value of spending so much time everyday consuming internet "wisdom".

Matt advocates working for oneself is an undisputed ideal, as if it would be
better to be an independent owner of a pizza shop than an early (or even not
so early) employee of Google.

I think it's likely our generation will have to work harder than our parents
and for much less rewards. We have quite a mess to clean up. We'll have to pay
for a 10 trillion dollar debt, endless wars, and a generation of retired baby
boomers to support in social security and medicare. All this with a declining
manufacturing industry and a totally dysfunctional financial system. Contrary
to Matt's conclusions, our parents have had it relatively easy.

Starting your own company is an awesome thing to do but let's not fool
ourselves into thinking we're privileged geniuses for doing so.

------
alex_c
As someone at the older end of the Millenial generation, and someone who grew
up in Europe and now lives in North America, I could only read the WSJ article
- and all the comments - with some amusement.

What I really read - underneath the "durn kids" feeling - was a generation
waking up to the fact that having some of the lowest vacation time in the
industrialized world
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_emplo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_employment_leave_by_country))
might not be such a great idea, and a generation of older employers not being
happy about it.

------
martythemaniak
While I definitely agree with the general sentiment in the post and here on HN
(in fact, I recently tried to quit my job and they had to entice me with
better work and more money, and the CFO actually tried on a few lines like the
ones in the WSJ article), but I'm afraid we might be looking at this through
the lens of privilege.

A lot of our peers, whether through lack of work, ability, ambition etc, don't
have the same options we do (lots of money, lots of jobs, interesting work),
but are still very much stuck in the old-style world.

This doesn't mean you didn't work hard to be in this position, just that our
sentiments are probably limited to the top end of our generation and wouldn't
make much sense to a lot of other people.

~~~
randrews
This comment reminds me of two friends I've got:

One finished a graduate degree in English last spring. She is now working as
an admin assistant for $28k a year. People told her that she had too much of a
sense of entitlement, when all she wants is a job doing what she's now very
qualified to do: write. She is getting a teaching certification because public
schools hire English majors and apparently no one else does.

The other has three degrees in business (two associates and a bachelors). He
wants to be a manager, so he's applying for jobs as a manager. He has no
experience (he worked as a sacker in a grocery store for about five years, but
that's it), no skills (other than supposedly "management"), but since he has a
degree in management, he thinks he can just jump right into it. Of course,
this hasn't worked out for him so far, so he's working phone support for an
ISP and living with his parents, rather than take a job beneath him (I've
actually gotten him a higher-paying job at my company, and he didn't even show
up for the interview).

One of these people has a pretty large sense of entitlement, the other one
just doesn't want to use her masters degree as a secretary.

~~~
anamax
> the other one just doesn't want to use her masters degree as a secretary.

Why not? Is it the kind of writing that she'd be doing (many secretaries write
a lot) or is it that she doesn't want to be a subordinate?

I'm beginning to think that the difference between them is that you think that
she's entitled to what she wants and he isn't.

After all, one could say that he just doesn't want to use his management
degrees to be an individual contributor.

~~~
randrews
If you'll think about it, there is actually a huge difference.

The comment I replied to was talking about how as (mostly) programmers, we
have a skewed perspective on the job market. Most people in our age range
don't get the kinds of job offers we do, and are badly underemployed.

She took a job she was overqualified for anyway, because there was nothing
else available, and hates it. He decided to _mooch off his parents_ because he
was entitled to a management job (he makes a small amount of money, but spends
it all on entertainment).

Being underemployed, and realizing it, is not a sense of entitlement. Asking
for handouts because you can't get the job you want (when others are
available) is.

------
run4yourlives
I'm an Xer (75). Let me just say that based on my experience, which includes a
few years in management, the WSJ article is an accurate and fair description
of the millennial generation (from a purely stereotypical pov).

Now, that's not to say I disagree with Matt. He does however use many counter
arguments that are more applicable to Xers than millenials (Yers). Yer's have
never seen much of economic downturn, and the "meager, middle class
lifestyles" they been living are have showered them with seemingly endless
material wealth.

I think Matt has misread most of the WSJ article, to be honest.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
I think both matt and the wsj are off. It's not about a sense of entitlement
or superior productivity (which I don't believe for a minute). The wsj "brat"
characterization doesn't match the "lazy" characterization I've more commonly
seen.

The real story is that the younger generation doesn't want to work hard
because at some subconscious level they understand that the current system
will not continue and will not reward hard work as it has. They know they
won't see a dime of their substantial FICA withholdings. They know they will
not ride another bull market to retirement and collect government checks.
Perhaps at some level they have even sensed the precarious state of the dollar
and the potential futility of trying to squirrel away wealth. Why work hard
when the government will tax or inflate most of it away, and you're unlikely
to get good compensation in the first place?

The older generations are too invested in the system to reach similar
conclusions. (Though it's interesting that doctors and lawyers are leaving the
professions in droves.) It's the psychology of sunk costs. Asking around about
social security is highly illustrative. A large fraction of young people will
come right out and say SS is probably going to collapse in coming years. Very
few people in their 40s will admit to this obvious truth.

This pattern where the younger generation senses the jig is up and gives up
the struggle before their elders can admit it is not rare. You can see the
same thing in Japan. You saw it in the Soviet Union before the fall.

~~~
pg
_The real story is that the younger generation doesn't want to work hard
because at some subconscious level they understand that the current system
will not continue and will not reward hard work as it has._

Pundits said exactly that about Generation X in the 90s. They turned out to be
mistaken, as you are.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
I don't see too many X-ers cruising towards a comfortable retirement at 65
like their parents...

------
bena
Don't mistake Entitlement for Ambition either. Ambition isn't walking into a
company and expecting to be well-paid with a lax dress code and ample time
off. Ambition is starting your own company and making something you know will
be awesome. I'm 28, and I've worked with some of these millenials. They talk a
big game, but they have no follow-through. All I hear is about how awesome
they are and how they grew up with technology and are so productive compared
to the crusty older generations. But all I see are a bunch of kids waxing
rhapsodic in a mirror lined echo chamber while the rest of us get something
done.

~~~
time_management
_Ambition isn't walking into a company and expecting to be well-paid with a
lax dress code and ample time off._

What I've noticed about "my generation" is approximately the following:

The best have a strong desire to work-- to be productive, to keep improving
their skills, and to develop their careers at a rapid rate. They're willing to
do grunt work, but only if they learn from it (and hopefully, can automate it
so that they don't have to do it in the future). They have no loyalty to
institutions and very little to individuals aside from close friends; their
loyalty is to their projects and education.

The worst of our generation are lazy and yet have the same prima donna
attitude. They're annoying. On the other hand, their most damaging trait is
their laziness rather than arrogance, and our generation doesn't seem to have
fewer or more lazy people than any other. So this isn't really a flaw that is
particular to any specific generation.

People like the WSJ are angry about the former set of people: talented people
who value growth and productivity over playing nice and paying dues. In
essence, they're angry that they can't find the hot girl who thinks she's
ugly.

~~~
bena
Your best share the traits of the best of every generation. Because they don't
fit even for whatever reason.

Your worst is your vast majority. And it is the arrogance that breed the
laziness. They already know they are awesome and deserve all this stuff, so
why aren't people just giving it to them already. Not to mention, the WSJ
article seems to imply that there is a high reward/low risk expectation from
these people.

And what you say about "talented people who value growth and productivity over
playing nice and paying dues" is nearly the same traits that made up the
stereotypical "arrogant computer person".

------
iamdave
Bravo Matt Maroon! Bravo! That was the _PERFECT_ rebuttle to the WSJ article
in every way, strong, accurate and pointed. I felt great reading this, every
sentence or two I found myself nodding my head in agreement.

~~~
lincolnq
I agreed with the article too, but I feel like it was because it was
flattering, not because I could tell that it was necessarily correct.

~~~
yters
Yeah, the article has too much self congratulation. I do think matt's right
about our capabilities, but the whole attitude doesn't help things. We need to
keep our ambition and drive, but drop the sense that people need to bow to our
whims. It is much more effective to learn our work environments and how the
system works, and work that to our advantage.

In short, both generations make the same mistake. Both treat their management
like parents, and are dependent on them. Consequently, they both use
children's strategies to get their way. One goes the goody two shoes route and
the other goes the pouty route.

------
marvin
What's up with this "war of the generations" you have in the US? It seems to
me you have terms for every possible obscure group or phenomenon related to
cultural differences between parents and their kids. Everyone blames everyone
for something: being ungrateful, snobby, fickle, controlling, etc, etc. It's
worse than anything I have ever seen. Seriously, why?

It's paradoxical that some of your age groups blames a younger group for
things _they themselves did_ when they were younger. How can you complain
about the work ethics of your grandkids when you spent five years high,
wandering around at rock festivals?

American culture baffles me in so many ways. Someone should write a book about
all the major cultural directions and conflicts in the US, but it would
probably be a massive read.

------
gibsonf1
(Building) Architecture may be an anomaly to Matt's belief that the new
generation is better, but I've noticed a precipitous decline in ability of
graduating architecture students over the last decade. Its so bad now that I
simply can't afford to hire anyone right out of school because the cost to my
firm of both extensive training and loss from mistakes is so high. The problem
I see is architecture schools focusing on trends in aesthetics such as
deconstruction rather than teaching students how to actually build a building.
This is probably different than CS schools in that the deconstruction
philosophy necessitates divorcing building from reality, which hopefully there
are no parallels for in CS programs.

~~~
bokonist
Architecture has been in awful state for the past 80 years. Just compare
buildings built in the 20th century to those in the 19th century. My
girlfriend is getting her masters in architecture now and it's an awful waste
of money. She's learned a lot about "aura" and generating weird building
designs from algorithms, but precious little about how to create buildings
people would enjoy living in. The schools should be shut down and boarded up
before they do any more damage, and the architecture profession should return
to an apprenticeship system.

~~~
gibsonf1
The new trend in using algorithms to design buildings is a fancy way to
divorce the building design from the problem at hand - a classic principle of
deconstruction.

As far as the state of architecture in general over the last 80(!) years, I
disagree with you. The current philosophical trend is deconstruction which is
making some architects adhering to that philosophy quite trendy and famous,
but there are many other architects who could care less about the latest trend
and pursue their own work with a different core philosophy (myself included).

~~~
bokonist
In most cities or college campuses the older buildings are all more beautiful
than buildings built after 1940, at least to my eye. The worst are the
brutalist and modernist buildings of the 50's and 60's.

~~~
gibsonf1
"Beautiful" is a concept completely lost in Architecture in trends dating back
many decades. I am a big fan of the beautiful, as are some other architects,
but the general trend has been to not even consider the idea for quite a
while. The most trendy thing now is sustainable building - also having nothing
to do with the beautiful and in many cases detrimental to the idea.

Another way to look at this is as long as it's trendy to make art that ignores
the beautiful, so too will architecture ignore the beautiful. It has to do
with culture and philosophy, and fortunately there are still some people who
desire beauty in their buildings and demand it from their architects, but not
nearly enough.

~~~
bokonist
Indeed, sustainability is the new trend. However, recently I came across a
random blog comment that noted that 19th century buildings were far more
energy efficient:

 _But look at lower Manhattan and all the traditional pre-war New York
skyscrapers . . . in fact, look at any great pre-war building . . . they are
all 10x more energy efficient than any modernist structure.

They tended to have thick masonary walls and windows that opened. (That's why
people had paperweights). They were also more slender and indented than the
sheer glass slabs that the "less is more" crowd have forced on us.

Traditionalists like Ernest Flagg and Sanford White were building for natural
ventilation and energy conservation because there was no alternative. And they
managed to solve this problem with soul-soaring art that was funtional and
profitable.

Thom Mayne is attempting to invent something that had already been perfected
generations ago but discarded in the name of "progress." But isn't that so
often the case. If he weren't so self-absorbed he might have learned something
from his elders._

Source:
[http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/03/san_francisco_d.h...](http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/03/san_francisco_d.html)

~~~
gibsonf1
I agree that the new SF Federal Building is really hideous looking, but it has
some state of the art sustainability features that far surpass the good old
days. Could this have been an attractive building with those same features?
Sure, but the trend followers want it this way - ugly.

~~~
bokonist
Btw, if you're interested, here is a good comment thread on the intellectual
origins of modern architecture:
[http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/03/dear_national_t.h...](http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/03/dear_national_t.html)

An excerpt:

 _FvB is on the right track, I think. It is not the style itself, but the
interaction between the style, the culture and the political system, that
created the problem._

 _Perhaps modernism is so successful because it's so hard to do well. It's a
classic academic fuck-you: create an unsolvable problem and then solve it. Can
you build a beautiful building out of flat, bare concrete? I can. Guess my SAT
must be higher than yours. Pity about that, poor chap._

 _It's pretty easy to see how this essentially repellent attitude can thrive
in a New Class world, where academic accomplishment is the only legitimate
form of social status. It's also easy to see how the emperor's new clothes
syndrome developed, and so many second-rate buildings, in which the subtle
elegance was so subtle as to be nonexistent, got built._

 _Innovative architecture doesn't have to mean ugly architecture - just as
innovative furniture doesn't (always) mean ugly furniture. But as long as
architectural decisionmakers are juries and committees rather than eccentric,
Randish corporate tycoons, Dilbert is here to stay. Playing by the New Class
rules gives us New Class buildings - the architecture we deserve._

An extreme theory, but after spending a lot of time hanging around academia,
I'm inclined to agree.

------
gcheong
It seems to me the people who promote these sweeping negative generational
generalizations are usually those who have a vested interest in promoting them
- this article being a prime example. Hmmm let's see, the WSJ article's
arguments were based on:

1.The opinions of a few consultants (who no doubt make at least part of their
living offering seminars for the poor managers on how to deal with these
'millenials' as well as seminars for the millenials on how to be effective
with their new bosses).

2.Anecdotal evidence from a couple HR people and a couple managers, one
"study" by Collegiate Employment Research Institute and MonsterTrak, an online
careers site (they did a study - it must be true!)

3.A survey by another career site where even by its own metrics only two
dimensions showed a clear majority opinion (higher pay and flexible work
schedules - something the workplace has been trending toward for years
anyway).

Every generation has been negatively characterized one way or another (the
60's hippies turned into the 70's/80's yuppies, generation "X" aka "the
slackers", and now the "millenials" aka "the entitled". Somehow all the
generations previous and present did fine and I suspect the same will be of
future generations as well.

~~~
nostrademons
Could you not indent lists? It makes them preformatted text, without line
breaks, which has messed up the whole formatting of the page.

Just have numbered paragraphs, like:

1.) First item.

2.) Second item.

~~~
mattmaroon
Why has this bug not been fixed yet?

------
anthonyrubin
While this is a great defense of Matt and people like him, the people
described by the WSJ absolutely exist.

~~~
tomjen
Yes they do exist. They exist because those people are us. Nobody argues that
the WSJ was wrong about the data they collected, but they were horribly wrong
with their conclusions and assignment of blame.

------
strlen
I agree with the general sentiment (no point in having company loyalty, longer
hours without a purpose and suit/strict work environment _not_ leading to
greater productivity), but the people posting on news.y.c are slightly
different from Gen Y'ers as a whole.

First most of us are technology professionals who by the time they started
their first job out of college had already had work experience (contracting
while in college and in my case, also working while a high school student
during the dot-com boom).

We however, tend to gravitate towards Internet and specifically web. Outside
of these industries, even in software, there is very little chance to work in
the sort of relaxed environment that we work in.

For example, several of my friends studied Computer Engineering and Electrical
Engineering as undergraduates: they want to do work that is more hardware and
algorithm related, to put their education to a use. Nonetheless most of these
companies (e.g. Intel) are very much "be there at 8:30, or we'll have a chat"
sort of places, where starting salaries are low and advancement is slow.

In the end there are people who are forced to choose between a more relaxed
environment and a chance to put their education to a use and work on problems
they find really interesting.

Note to entrepreneurs: this is a feature; there are lots of young and
ambitious professionals who would _love_ to use their skills in a less rigid
environment. Start something other than a web application company and
capitalize on this.

(Same holds true for financial companies - many high end finance geeks are now
getting layed-off in mass droves -- again, feature, not a bug)

~~~
nostrademons
> Note to entrepreneurs: this is a feature; there are lots of young and
> ambitious professionals who would love to use their skills in a less rigid
> environment. Start something other than a web application company and
> capitalize on this.

A lot of this is because of the structure of the industries. Software is as
pure intellectual capital as it can get, outside of tenured professorships. As
a result, the firm's entire capital base exists in the minds of its employees,
and this gives them enormous bargaining power.

Hardware companies take significant physical capital to start, so employees
can't just leave and do their own thing. That's why you don't see a flood of
ambitious youngsters going into hardware. _They can't_ \- not without venture
capital and a network of suppliers.

Same goes for financial companies - sorta. In finance, the primary capital
base of a firm is its reputation and network of dealmakers. When you're just
starting out, you have nothing here, which is why newbie I-bankers work 16
hour days and only get paid in the high 5-figures. But once you've been at it
for a couple years, you've built up a network, and those clients are _yours_ ,
which is why experienced I-bankers rake in the dough and have nice working
conditions. They simply have more bargaining power.

~~~
strlen
| Hardware companies take significant physical capital to | start, so
employees can't just leave and do their own | thing. That's why you don't see
a flood of ambitious | youngsters going into hardware. They can't - not with |
venture capital and a network of suppliers.

I suppose you meant 'not without'. This is still largely true, but there are
also FPGAs and HDLs and simulators: you can do your R&D and prototyping with
fairly low costs (and take VC funding by the time you're ready to market and
manufacture a product).

You still have a significant point in this respect, however, and what I meant
was more along the lines of entrepreneurs could do something to address the
problem of "I didn't spend 4-6 years studying engineering to write PHP, MySQL
and Javascript" -- ideas that appeal to those who want to solve harder
problems (and perhaps problems related to hardware, but solved in software).
If you look at openings at places like Intel you'll see they also employ a
great deal of people in software functions (from compilers to data
mining/machine learning (for manufacturing)).

There are lot of problems outside of social networking / advertising / web
content (not that these are bad problems to solve, no offense intended to
anyone) that take low capital to get into yet are complex enough to attract a
pool of talent that has fewer options.

------
nostrademons
I couldn't tell whether this entry was satire or not. It started getting a
little over-the-top at "If we seem to have high self-esteem, it’s because
we’re better."

Regardless, I don't see why the original article merits a response. There will
_always_ be people who don't like you, think you have it too easy, and are
willing to paint a whole generation with that brush. Ignore them. There's
little you can say that'll make them change their minds, and usually they'll
just take your rebuttal as evidence of entitlement or arrogance anyway.
Actions speak louder than words.

------
bokonist
_The Republican Party has spent the last 28 years systematically destroying
unions._

The decline of the unions had much more to do with 1) competition from the
American south, Mexico, and Asia, and 2) the rise of an American tribute
empire, where America's primary export is debt that then gets inflated away.
This enriched those connected to the debt creation ( Wall St, government
workers at all levels, licensed occupations, people in real estate) but
devastated manufacturing.

~~~
mattmaroon
You should read more Krugman. It started with Reagan.

~~~
bokonist
I've read plenty of both Krugman and others like him that make the same point.
I find it entirely very unconvincing. For instance, take the city of New
Haven, where I went to college. In the 1950's the city had a thriving
industrial base and tens of thousands of high paying union jobs. Over the next
few decades many of these businesses collapsed due to competition from lower
priced manufacturing in the South and West. Manufacturing jobs went from 43%
of New Haven employment to 20% by 1973. The famous Winchester factory went
from an employment of 10,000 to around 700 by 1979. In that year there was a
massive strike. The strike caused the factory to hemorrhage money and
corporate actually ended up selling it for peanuts to the employees. But even
as an employee owned enterprise, it failed to make money, and eventually it
closed completely. Today Winchester rifles are manufactured on a multinational
basis, with some parts being made in Utah and others in Portugal. This same
story was repeated across the rust belt, from Detroit to Philadelphia. None of
this fits Krugman's story. The unions were strong, they were just asking for
more money than the market would pay them (although the market was rigged, as
I note below).

If your interested in reading more, I highly recommend Douglas Rae's City:
Urbanism and its End. Here is an except from Google books that talks about the
decline of manufacturing in New Haven:
[http://books.google.com/books?ei=FgwCSeeYGoLmygS73cy3Cw&...](http://books.google.com/books?ei=FgwCSeeYGoLmygS73cy3Cw&id=Ve0MPmi2LgoC&dq=city+douglas+rae&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&sig=ACfU3U1vA2iQgGfgwl8_0h0lFC9r4_bjJw&q=winchester#PPA363,M1)

A lot of the worst downsizing did indeed happen during the Reagan presidency.
But that had a lot more to do with Volcker's strong dollar policies, high
interest rates, and the resulting rise in the trade deficit, than it had
anything to do with Reagan's policies. For the past thirty years, foreign
governments and investors have been selling the U.S. cheap manufactured goods
and then buying our financial securities. This has decimated our manufacturing
sector as domestic producers have been unable to compete with manufactures in
countries with an artificially weak currency. But its been a windfall to
everyone in the U.S. who borrows money - from leveraged buyout firms to the
government itself.

~~~
mattmaroon
There seems to be much more to it than just that though. From Krugman:

"Second, again like Reagan, Bush has used the government's power to make it
harder for workers to organize. The National Labor Relations Board, founded to
protect the ability of workers to organize, has become for all practical
purposes an agent of employers trying to prevent unionization. A spectacular
example of this anti-union bias came just a few months ago. Under U.S. labor
law, legal protections for union organizing do not extend to supervisors. But
the Republican majority on the NLRB ruled that otherwise ordinary line workers
who occasionally tell others what to do -- such as charge nurses, who
primarily care for patients but also give instructions to other nurses on the
same shift -- will now be considered supervisors. In a single administrative
stroke, the Bush administration stripped as many as 8 million workers of their
right to unionize."

You can't simply explain the death of unions by saying manufacturing has gone
overseas. Those jobs were replaced by retail and service industry ones which,
in the 70s, were also largely unionized. Now they're not. Why?

~~~
bokonist
Unions in some sectors are more powerful than ever. Nurse unions in particular
are very strong, much more so than they were fifty years ago. The education
sector, construction, and government employees at all levels, have very strong
unions. If government policies destroyed the unions, why are the public sector
unions so powerful?

Also, to a large extent occupational licensing has replaced unionization. See
this paper for instance: <http://ftp.iza.org/dp3675.pdf> Excerpts: "During the
early 1950s, less than 5 percent of the U.S. work force was covered by
licensing laws at the state level (Council of State Governments, 1952). That
grew to almost 18 percent by the 1980s with an even larger number if federal,
city and county occupational licensing is included. By 2000, the percent of
the workforce in occupations licensed by states was at least 20 percent,
according to data gathered from the Department of Labor and the 2000 Census.
...Our multivariate estimates suggest that licensing has about the same
quantitative impact on wages as do unions - that is about 15 percent..."

It's hard to unionize a hair salon, because anyone can open a competing hair
salon and undercut the prices. So instead, the hair dressers lobby the
legislature to pass occupational licensing laws which create barriers to
entry, thus raising the pay.

 _Those jobs were replaced by retail and service industry ones which, in the
70s, were also largely unionized._

Were they? Places like Sears or Sandy's Drive-In were not unionized in the
1970's. Which service and retail jobs were unionized in the 70's that are not
today?

One theory is that its hard to establish unions in industries that are mobile
and have low costs to entry. If Walmart employees unionized, it wouldn't be
long before a Target moved in and undercut their prices by using non-union
workers. Pre-1950, factories were only profitable near rail lines and ports.
The rise of the highway system and power lines made factories much more
mobile. This allowed factories to move to locations where unions were not so
powerful. This is the Doug Rae theory from the book I recommended above. I
don't really buy it though.

More likely, I think the high unionization rates of the 1950's were a result
of New Deal and World War II corporatism. As the giant "organization man"
corporations created by the New Deal gradually declined, so did unionization.

I'm curious. You run a company. If you were interviewing a potential employee,
and he announced to you that he might strategically refuse to come to work at
some point in order to extract a higher wage, would this make you think twice
about hiring him? Do you think the government should make it illegal for you
to hold the candidate's comment against him in the hiring process?

~~~
jonny_noog
_If government policies destroyed the unions, why are the public sector unions
so powerful?_

I think it's mainly just because politicians don't want to shit where they
live.

I'm in the capital city of my country, ~50% of the jobs here are public, you
can't turn around here without bumping into a government department. As slow
and plodding as any public bureaucracy is, if the politicians were to start
attacking the public service union, they can say goodbye to any hope of
getting anything done, and they know it.

In my country, the early to mid 70's was probably the peak of the left-wing
socialist ideal prevailing as the popular paradigm. This scared the hell out
of conservatives (of both major parties) and they've been doing their damn
best for the last 30 odd years to pull the political spectrum so far to the
right that even the left-wing isn't very left-wing anymore. Curtailing the
power of unions was part of their strategy. It wasn't just an unintended
byproduct of ostensibly peripheral phenomena. And you know, I'd actually have
a lot more respect for those guys if they just came out and said: "Yup, we
don't like unions and we're trying to gut them for reasons X, Y and Z."

I'm not trying to argue the all in, pro-union line either, but lets call a
spade a spade.

------
nazgulnarsil
_Some meager, middle-class lifestyle_

Spoken like an arrogant suburban raised kid. Do you know that literally
_BILLIONS_ would love to have that "meager middle-class lifestyle"? Did you
ever pause to consider the luxuries afforded by a middle class lifestyle. By
all sane metrics we live like fucking kings.

~~~
time_management
The American poor/peasants (75+%) have crappy health coverage, no economic
security, overpriced and ugly houses built from makeshift materials, food
loaded with hydrogenated oil and high fructose corn syrup, a suburbanized
lifestyle that fosters alienation while destroying the environment, and
menial, servile jobs with low autonomy, inflexible work schedules, and a
meager two weeks' vacation allowance... but a Fucking Shitload of consumer
trinkets.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
no one forces these people to waste their income on shiny baubles. many MANY
people could get by working less if they cut their consumption.

you act as if health coverage, economic security, underpriced nice houses, a
healthy diet, complete social adjustment, and happy fulfilling jobs with lots
of vacation are an inherent right.

Yeah, i wish we lived in a world of unlimited resources too. But we don't.

I read this as you being so out of touch with reality that you don't think
that middle class or hell even lower class suburban living is a life of ease
compared to the world average. when you compare it to history it's even
better. You have so few worries that you're able to worry about the future
(security, health, diet). That in itself is a luxury.

------
tom_rath
Has there ever been a generation which hasn't claimed "This time, things will
be different!"? If you'll look back on what was written caustically about (and
in rebuttal by) the Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers, I'm not seeing much difference
now.

There are going to be a few of us in each generation which set out to be
entrepreneurs and will tenaciously stick by that world-view our entire lives.
The readers of this board are a self-selecting group (and aren't necessarily
representative of the latest set of graduates) but many will still end up
employee grist for the cubicle mill after their first dozen major setbacks.

~~~
mattmaroon
The boomers have had a tremendous effect on society. If you don't believe me,
go visit a Whole Foods or read Bobos in Paradise.

They said things would be different and they are. Marijuana may not be legal
yet (in most states) but a lot has changed.

~~~
tom_rath
Every generation has had a tremendous effect on society.

Has there ever been a "Meh, fuck it." generation?

~~~
mattmaroon
There have been some (like X) that were too small to cause large change due to
much larger numbers of the previous generation still being in the work force.

~~~
tom_rath
Haven't the X'ers been the ones to create the technologies and found the
companies you folks are so eager to emulate?

------
markessien
Frankly, I don't get this attitude. Who is fighting Matt and his generation?
Life is at is always has been, business and ambition is as it always has been.

If you want to strike it out your way, then do so, it's not a fight and nobody
will battle to stop you. Just do it in silence, calmy and as if it is
perfectly normal, because it is.

The battle is in your head. You see everyone working in cubicles, so your mind
is telling you that that is where you should be, but your heart is telling you
something else. The struggle is inside you, outside, nothing and nobody really
cares what you do with yourself.

------
cpr
Boy, "better educated than previous generations"? Give me a bloomin' break.

There hasn't been any seriously good education in this country (except at a
few places like Thomas Aquinas College in Ojai, CA and the two St. John's
campuses) since about 1880 when the good Dr. Conant (president of Harvard)
decided that science trumps all, and started heavily diluting what was a
fairly decent liberal arts education.

~~~
kaens
Perhaps "better educated" in the sense that if I want to learn how something
works, I can do so - I am not limited by whether or not I am in college, or
what is available to learn at my college, or the quality of professors - I am
limited only by my desire to learn.

------
13ren
Sounds like neoteny (rapid learning and childishness)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny#In_humans>

I wonder if the ability to absorb new technology has driven neoteny in us,
since our beginning?

Maybe the next generation is always evolutionarily _fitter_ than the previous
generation, due to being able to absorb new technology more easily because
(1). uncluttered and unconfused by the old technology, and (2). immature
humans are simply better at learning (the immature young of many species have
more plastic brains - they soak up patterns like sponges).

Within that next generation, those who are better at absorbing technology
(i.e. ways of doing things), and those that stay in that immature-stage of
rapid learning for longer, will be more successful at surviving and passing on
their genes. They don't have to be _great_ at it, just _better_ at it than
others who can't absorb it as well (or for as many years).

------
slvrspoon
i guarantee Matt will cringe when he reads this in years to come. some valid
critiques of the worker-bee lifestyle, but a completely off the mark sense of
true utility, value and cross-generation contribution to such. any small
amount of serious study of historical "effort" would cause an about face hear.
there is little else to say.

~~~
redrobot5050
I wrote one of those "advice for college graduates" articles after only
working for 2 years -- 1 year in a cube farm where you were a thing, not a
person, and another in larger company that gave people offices, windows, had
wellness programs -- basically gave a shit. People have told me that I would
"regret my writing X s/months/years from now" but I still don't.

I (still) wouldn't willingly work in a cube farm. If they're so pressed/cheap
for space, I'll gladly work from home instead.

------
Mistone
matt, really well done, right or wrong the points are strong and presented in
a very interesting manner. I've read a lot of your blogs here on yc news and
have rarely agreed with you, in Maroon vs. WSJ article, I'm all in on Maroon.

------
brianm
Ya'll made me feel old today :-) I thought it was us Xers who were the
rambunctious "zomg, how will they ever function in the work place!" hyper-
ambitious folk making the boomers shake their heads...

Love it!

~~~
colortone
exactly

instead of "entitlement" they should said "acting like a 23 year old"

;-)

------
adldesigner
Replies to this particular entry are a demographic study on their own. Thanks
everyone! :)

------
jfarmer
Welcome to the echo chamber.

------
lsc
sounds like entitlement to me.

