Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 gorgon wrote:
But you can at least search for jobs in other areas thanks to the wonders of the interwebz.

"Can you fly down to Cleveland for an Interview?"

No I can't because I already have a job where time off is a pain in the ass to get and even if I got it I don't have a couple hundred bucks to drop on a round ticket just to learn you've had thousands of applicants. I've done the same thing you did already, and the reality is that it's not that simple anymore. I moved out the Kansas for a job with better opportunity except that better opportunity ended up going to someone else because competition has become so fierce and my odds of beating out hundreds or thousands of others are pretty low at this point. Even managing to jump the hurdle and get a stab at it took me 2 years. It would take years right now (5 years after starting) for me to become the most qualified candidate to move up. But gak wasn't like that when my parents were entering the work force and they patently fail to realize how much larger to pool of candidates for most jobs has become.

You can't just get a phone interview anymore. I've done phone interviews, after which the employer wants in person interviews and they do that because they can afford to. There's so many people putting their hats in the ring for the job that if only three or four people can show up to actually meet face to face they'll be just fine and non-ironically the kind of people who can afford to do that either live in the area already or are already well off.

Not everyone can be a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon and find themselves in an advantageous position if they approach the job market the right way.

Sometimes you need to take risks, especially if nothing much is going on for you anyway.

The most tiresome thing to be told after "just work hard" is "take risks." I've taken gak tons of risks. $100,000 dollars in risk before I even got a degree, plus hundreds more since on dry cleaning, gas, phone calls, and all the wasted time that comes with searching for a good job.

 gorgon wrote:
Sometimes you need to take risks, especially if nothing much is going on for you anyway.

Oh, thanks. Sage advice there. So again, how do you make the move if you can't fund it? Go into debt? That is a risk. If you can even obtain the credit necessary to fund the move. And if you already are in debt, say by taking a risk that a fething degree would actually pay off, and it didn't, what then? Or what if someone made a move to a different region and their luck didn't pan out. They risked. What now?

The implied insult that I or anyone else in this thread is risk adverse is obnoxious.

 gorgon wrote:
And what kind of situations are you talking about that involve radical climate change? Maybe you need a heavier coat if you move north. Maybe you need another pair of shorts if you move south. And exactly where is a basic car not going to operate? You're not helping your case with those kinds of objections.

Okay, I'll try and play nice despite your jabs.

Radical climate change, let's see: NorCal to the South West would be dramatic, require a new wardrobe, and potentially a different vehicle.

SoCal to anywhere mountainous like Colorado or Idaho would require a wardrobe change and likely a different vehicle. If you have a sub-compact car traversing icy-mountain roads isn't fun.

Moving from one coast to another would produce dramatic climate change for the person involved. Again, you are advocating that someone who is strapped for cash and low on options "simply" relocate somewhere else, but you aren't considering all of the real-world costs involved. Pretending that moving from Los Angeles to Denver, or Napa to Albequerque, or Rochester, PA to Orlando, FL would have no impact on the clothes you wear or the type of goods you'd need to properly live in those vastly different climates is, to use your words, not helping your case.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Oh, thanks. Sage advice there. So again, how do you make the move if you can't fund it? Go into debt? That is a risk. If you can even obtain the credit necessary to fund the move. And if you already are in debt, say by taking a risk that a fething degree would actually pay off, and it didn't, what then? Or what if someone made a move to a different region and their luck didn't pan out. They risked. What now?

Out of meager curiosity I just looked at what it would cost to rent a U-Haul and go 300 miles; $400 dollar, not including gas. Throw in maybe $100 it would cost me to load on on cheap gonna fall apart before the season is over winter gear, the probable increase in insurance across the board cause "red neck hills" VA has some of the cheapest insurance I've ever paid (even cheaper than country PA, which surprised me), and I'm probably looking at somewhere around $500 to move.

I could afford that but only because my parents don't make me pay rent and my car is paid off. Not everyone can do that. It's like people seriously don't comprehend how little free cash you have when you're working minimum wage, which isn't a millennial only thing to be sure, but seriously can people stop pretending that "just move" is the answer to the struggle of being poor? There's probably lots of Xers and Boomers would would appreciate an end to that too.

SoCal to anywhere mountainous like Colorado or Idaho would require a wardrobe change and likely a different vehicle. If you have a sub-compact car traversing icy-mountain roads isn't fun.

I can tell you driving my car in even light snow is terrifying. I don't know what it is about the Ford Fiesta (I named him Slowpoke Rodrigeuz ) but that thing slides if there's even a quarter inch on the road. Probably because it's so light. If I were to live somewhere with heavier or longer winters I wouldn't feel very safe driving it but I'd probably have to because cars aren't cheap and I couldn't afford one even if I wanted to.

Rochester, PA to Orlando, FL

That's like... Kafkaesque XD

Yes, sometimes one does have to take risks.

When I went for my current job, on offer was a doubling of my wage. Downside? For each role, there was 100 applicants.

Glad to say I clearly made that 1%.

But I'm even more glad to say that I have supportive parents.

Now, you may be wondering 'Oh Doc, you landed that job, what did your parents have to do with it!?'

Simple. Train Ticket.

See, I live in the beautiful town of Royal Tunbridge Wells. And my job is in London. For that first month, I had to get the train. And that ticket cost £432.00. Not a misprint, £432.00.

Now, at the time, I earned over the minimum wage at £13,200 per annum. After tax, rent, food, water, electricity? I had the princely sum of £200 disposable income each month.

D'you see the problem there? Had it not been for my parents treating me to that first month's commute cost, I could not have taken this job and would have been doomed to work my bollocks off for an absolute pittance|

And I'm far from the only one in this situation. How can someone on a low income make the jump I did? It's just not possible without some cash behind you - and pitifully few can afford to save.

So it's far from 'just look for a better job in the right areas'.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And that ticket cost £432.00. Not a misprint, £432.00.

Setting all this stuff aside, how does it cost $502 (432 Euros) to travel 40 miles?! In the US I could travel 300 miles on that, bring all my stuff with me, and still have change left over XD

Are trains that expensive in the UK?

Yup. Also, they've been privatised. And The Hastings-London line is under a single operator.

So they pretty much charge what they want, because otherwise you're stuffed.

I now get a coach to and from, which is half the price, comfier and usually more reliable.

 LordofHats wrote:
Out of meager curiosity I just looked at what it would cost to rent a U-Haul and go 300 miles; $400 dollar, not including gas. Throw in maybe $100 it would cost me to load on on cheap gonna fall apart before the season is over winter gear, the probable increase in insurance across the board cause "red neck hills" VA has some of the cheapest insurance I've ever paid (even cheaper than country PA, which surprised me), and I'm probably looking at somewhere around $500 to move.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting. Great examples! And 300 miles isn't all that far in terms of relocating. A multi-day 1000+ mile trip would be even worse.

 LordofHats wrote:
I can tell you driving my car in even light snow is terrifying. I don't know what it is about the Ford Fiesta (I named him Slowpoke Rodrigeuz ) but that thing slides if there's even a quarter inch on the road. Probably because it's so light. If I were to live somewhere with heavier or longer winters I wouldn't feel very safe driving it but I'd probably have to because cars aren't cheap and I couldn't afford one even if I wanted to.

Exactly. It may not always be an issue for each person, but it is definitely a factor that needs to be considered. I drive an older model Scion XB(ox), and I don't think it would handle most "country road" conditions. It is pretty low to the ground, has weak acceleration and is front wheel drive. I don't even take it out to the desert when we go shooting because I've had trouble getting it over rougher terrain. If I moved somewhere non-urban I'd likely want 4WD, and probably something lifted higher than my Xbox. Want, not get. I can't just produce a new vehicle out of thin air.

 LordofHats wrote:

Rochester, PA to Orlando, FL

That's like... Kafkaesque XD

 LordofHats wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And that ticket cost £432.00. Not a misprint, £432.00.

Setting all this stuff aside, how does it cost $502 (432 Euros) to travel 40 miles?! In the US I could travel 300 miles on that, bring all my stuff with me, and still have change left over XD

Are trains that expensive in the UK?

Yes.

I spent about £4.5k on accommodation at university for my final year in Manchester for ten months. It costs £800 more for a train from my home town of Derby for the equivalent season ticket and £1.5k more if I get a ticket every day.

I only take the train when I need to get home quick. The bus is cheaper, comfier, I don't have to change trains halfway through and it has free Wifi so I'm not bored out of my mind for three hours.

Good ol' privatisation, eh?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
A multi-day 1000+ mile trip would be even worse.

Tell me about it. I moved to Kansas and then Drove back to PA 2 years later. I don't like traveling tho so I soldered on and did the trip in 2 days, and saved on hotel by sleeping over at Grandmas.

I'm going to bow out of this thread, because it appears we're talking about different things. I thought we were discussing the underemployed, but if we're talking about people who can't afford phones, internet access or clothing, then we're talking about a serious level of poverty and a wildly different situation.

I also appreciate how this topic can get emotional quickly, and in retrospect this thread was probably intended as a place to vent and not one to seek advice or share ideas. I'll just close by saying that there are people here who have started quite humbly and come out the other side. So when we see young people saying "I can't," we have a reaction to that because our experience has shown us that it's not necessarily true.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

See, I live in the beautiful town of Royal Tunbridge Wells. And my job is in London. For that first month, I had to get the train. And that ticket cost £432.00. Not a misprint, £432.00.

That was for a ticket for the month, right? That's about 11 pounds one way. It's 40 miles to London? 30 pence a mile.

My father grew up just up the A26 from you, in Tonbridge. I visited a few times over the years. It's a beautiful area, lots of old estates and farms and oasts to explore. Bodiam and Tonbridge Castles, too.

 gorgon wrote:
II'll just close by saying that there are people here who have started quite humbly and come out the other side.

Of course they have. We probably will too somehow.

But I'd like to hope that whenever we work through our struggles we won't spend our later adulthood lecturing our children and grandchildren about how easy they have it and how they should stop wanting everything for free. EDIT: I mean seriously. Can we make that like a generational quest? To minimize our dickishness when we're older? So yeah we're kind of griping here (and that gets emotional), but it's not like we're making this stuff up. A college grad being in my situation would be a complete fringe element 50 years ago, but today it's surprisingly common. Millennials are the most educated generation of Americans thus far, and millions of us are working jobs that don't even require a highschool diploma after getting college degrees! There are people who sometimes with good intention offer outdated and non-applicable to the current economy advice, who seem to have confused having cool tech toys at our finger tips with having an easy life, and however good their intention are the way its playing out comes off as pretentious and insulting. So yeah, some of us are gonna gripe

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Sometimes you need to take risks, especially if nothing much is going on for you anyway.

Oh, thanks. Sage advice there.

Amusingly, it comes down to people giving 'advice' like that are just plain lazy.

"Take a risk!" "You just need to learn to live leaner and sacrifice!" Let's them feel smugly superior that they know the answer, and let's them write off any greater systemic problems, or any lack of knowledge they have about real problems.. It's all on the other person not trying hard enough!

It reminds me of the last election cycle where a congressmen castigated 'kids these days,' for whining about college debt and the college loan crisis, supporting his viewpoint by the fact that he put himself through college by working a summer job, instead of going on vacations and buying video games.

Which shows profound laziness on his part about knowing anything about anything. He certainly had no idea how much college tuition cost, and how many job are out there that a kid can work for a summer and pay a whole year's tuition.

For what little effort they're willing to put into saying, 'take a risk!' they're not willing to take the time or effort to think it through. There's a reason why it's called, 'a risk; and if they put in the modicum of effort to check dictionary.com first, they might understand the problem with their line of thinking. Let's simplify things - let's say that two qualified people 'took a risk' for one opening. One of them gets it, and the other one? The statistics on how many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck with almost no savings shows why 'take a risk!' is such a pile of tripe. Taking a risk and losing means the person is pretty well fethed, and the systematic dismantling of the social safety net (in the U.S. at least) means there are no guarantees of any help to keep things from ending in utter disaster.

On the other side of the coin, my office recently had a general callout asking for ideas of:

"We can't recruit enough people, why aren't people joining us? Help!!!!?"

It's something my office has a typical problem with - a few years ago, they tried to hire 125 people for some jobs. They ended up with 20.

So, anyhow. There was a bunch of posting, usually people complaining about pay (our pay, in professional terms, is pretty bad, but is broadly speaking, preferable to minimum wage style jobs being in an office and is fine for entry type jobs. It's mid-career that the problems start).

Anyhow, the way some of the conversation was going, my ears started twigging a bit.

"When I started, I was reimbursed for travel expenses, that still happens, right? Cause, if you're trying to recruit country wide (or wider) and, you're not, that'll be a problem.

Fortunately, I've been in work for a while, so I don't know the exact details but... Universal Credit (Which I knew as Jobseekers Allowance) is:


Your circumstances Monthly standard allowance
Single and under 25 £251.77
Single and 25 or over £317.82

It's not unreasonable to assume that to get to an interview and back, again, assuming you're wanting recruitment for the breadth of the country, that it costs a tank of petrol, or equivalent in train/bus, there and back, plus, say, £25 for a night in a BnB.

That would be £125, half of a months JSA/universal credit, for a completely new, fresh graduate just for an interview. Even reimbursing, that's a fair chunk of cash to keep in a bank account."

It turns out, no, as part of cost saving, they took away that policy of reimbursement shortly after I joined.


I think it's something that's slowly changing. I'm hearing of some tech companies now that actually pay you to go to interviews and pay for the costs. I imagine that probably won't filter down through all sectors, but hey, it's better there than not. Of course it also probably doesn't help anyone having issues finding jobs right this minute.

My company is actually pretty actively always trying to recruit people. Mostly in NYC and St Louis, though occasionally in London.

A former manager of mine found out I had a younger sibling and practically begging me to have her apply for one of the spots.

I've noticed some odd things about job calls myself. The local Walmart never has enough enough employees, and if you ask management they'll tell you they can't find anyone. if you ask the employees, they'll tell you they won't hire anyone. I have no idea what's up with that. Is that there aren't enough qualified applicants? How can anyone not be qualified to work at Walmart? Does management just want to save on costs but doesn't want to tell that to anyone?

No idea but it's bizarre. When I was working for Fed-Ex I could actually see a struggling to find people to do the work cause it was actually pretty hard labor, way harder than you'd think going in, but Fed-Ex offers pretty good wages for menial work (if only it came with the hours). They never seemed to struggle to find people. I worked three different facilities and we were never understaffed.

Same thing when I worked at Target and Target paid its employees gak and threated them like gak. No problem finding staff. The McDonalds meanwhile across the street, which paid above minimum wage by a few bucks, never seemed to have enough people inside...

Y'know what? I'm not done here.

 Bookwrack wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Sometimes you need to take risks, especially if nothing much is going on for you anyway.

Oh, thanks. Sage advice there.

Amusingly, it comes down to people giving 'advice' like that are just plain lazy.

"Take a risk!" "You just need to learn to live leaner and sacrifice!" Let's them feel smugly superior that they know the answer, and let's them write off any greater systemic problems, or any lack of knowledge they have about real problems.. It's all on the other person not trying hard enough!

Please.

Point #1: This "you don't understand how things are now" line of reasoning I'm seeing here is horse gak. That's the kind of thing pimply-faced teenagers wrongly say to parents. We all want to believe our problems are unique, because it makes us feel special. They aren't -- at least not wholly -- and sometimes people who have been through difficulties of their own know a thing or two.

Point #2: Because THE SYSTEM is what it is, there probably aren't any immediate solutions to be had there, right? Bernie Sanders isn't coming through that door carrying sacks full of universal income for everyone. So let that go, and focus on anything that you can control -- that's all I'm saying.

*IF* we're talking about underemployment, then switch something up to try to change your position. Some "somethings" may not be feasible for everyone, but whatever is within your power to change...try it. Making changes to resumes, interviewing approaches, networking, etc. are all things that can be done without a large price tag attached.

There are people in bad situations who have done all the right things and haven't had anything work for them. However, there are things that I've seen here and heard elsewhere that scream "paralyzed by fear" to me. Maybe the entire Millennial generation is suffering from some kind of PTSD, I don't know. Maybe this is a bonafide generational divide. Gen Xers know that THE SYSTEM sucks. We invented that attitude. "Reality Bites," anyone? But we're also the generation that usually gets labeled as the most independent and entrepreneurial, because we had to be. It's not the struggles that I can't understand, but the ways in which those struggles are approached by some in younger generations.

 Compel wrote:
On the other side of the coin, my office recently had a general callout asking for ideas of:

"We can't recruit enough people, why aren't people joining us? Help!!!!?"

I've read some things about this recently. The best explanation I've seen is that while employers have openings, they aren't always as competitive as they could be with their wages because they don't trust that workers will stick around, etc. Meanwhile, workers aren't willing to move to where jobs are or leave current positions because they don't trust that employers and positions are stable, and aren't impressed with the wages.

So basically a cold war of sorts between employers and prospective employees fueled by distrust. At least in some industries and situations.

Alright, now I'm really done.

 daedalus wrote:
My company is actually pretty actively always trying to recruit people. Mostly in NYC and St Louis, though occasionally in London.

A former manager of mine found out I had a younger sibling and practically begging me to have her apply for one of the spots.

Who, out of curiosity? I'm a recent InfoMgnt grad, and actually finding those folks who are recruiting is a bit of a pain.

 LordofHats wrote:
I've noticed some odd things about job calls myself. The local Walmart never has enough enough employees, and if you ask management they'll tell you they can't find anyone. if you ask the employees, they'll tell you they won't hire anyone. I have no idea what's up with that. Is that there aren't enough qualified applicants? How can anyone not be qualified to work at Walmart? Does management just want to save on costs but doesn't want to tell that to anyone?

No idea but it's bizarre. When I was working for Fed-Ex I could actually see a struggling to find people to do the work cause it was actually pretty hard labor, way harder than you'd think going in, but Fed-Ex offers pretty good wages for menial work (if only it came with the hours). They never seemed to struggle to find people. I worked three different facilities and we were never understaffed.

Same thing when I worked at Target and Target paid its employees gak and threated them like gak. No problem finding staff. The McDonalds meanwhile across the street, which paid above minimum wage by a few bucks, never seemed to have enough people inside...

It mostly because companies dont pay enough. For example the water park I used to work at has 2 security guards
Why not more? Because no one is willing to work the that little. its around 11.00$ an hour in the blistering heat. and many guard would rather take better jobs
They also refused to hire perfectly qualified EMT who asked for more because she was a registered nurse looking for quick work before her certificate comes

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh everyone has to work at it. But Baby Boomer absolutely had it easier.

All the stress and insecurity a person feels now gets forgotten in time. That's a large part of what nostalgia is.

Look, I'm not looking to dismiss any of today's pressures. I feel them to, though I admit I'm luckier than most. And I completely agree that any person who says the pressures on today's generation is because they don't work hard enough or anything like that is full of it, and probably an donkey-cave.

I'm just saying that you shouldn't push it to far the other way. Just because they're ignorant of the realities that make life difficult today, it doesn't mean we should be ignorant of the realities that made life difficult then. That just turns it in to a pissing contest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Millinial Here
as a 20-30 year old, im often told that im horrible with money and that i spend all my savings on too many trips(I do, but lets see why)
Sociology tought me that quite a bit of your formative years are your 14-21 when it comes to alot of stuff. What happened when I was 16?
The market crashed. So I saw alot of people lose their home, lose their car and lose alot of stuff
Why should I spend so much money for something that will just up an disppear. Why should I save when the savings might just disappear because the previous generation gakked up. Maybe I want to spend it on a nice sandwich now, then nothing later on?
Im honestly so scared for the future now that it fills me with dread. Because I know its gonna get worse. Especially here in the bay when it comes to housing. It used to be my 18.50$ n hour job would help me get an apartment with a friend. now im lucky if I can give my mom rent.

There's a bunch of research in behavioral investment that has found exactly what you just posted. That high profile events that happen when people are in their late teens and through their 20s define how they understand the world. This is why so many people in their 50s and 60s are paranoid of inflation, despite almost all of the western world having extremely stable currency for almost 40 years. It's why so many people who are in their 40s love housing but hate stocks, because their understanding of investment was defined by the '87 crash.

It's led to predictions of a whole generation who will possibly be scared off investment of any kind, following the housing and market crashes of 2006-08. Which is the view you've pretty much perfectly captured above.

Given we are also moving in to a new world of small and unreliable pensions, having a whole block of people who won't build their own asset base could be a serious issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
Sure. Maybe it's society's fault. It's YOUR life. You get to choose how you respond to whatever forces that caused whatever issues you have..

It is possible to act within the system and work as best you can, while also recognising the system isn't working as well as it should and talking about possibly improvements.

For a 40K analogy (and bare in mind I know little about the new version), as I understand it taking a huge number of conscripts is a pretty powerful option. People will play within those rules, either by taking loads of conscripts, or building armies that can kill large numbers of crappy troops, while at the same time having a conversation about how the rules are sub-optimal and need to change.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It mostly because companies dont pay enough. For example the water park I used to work at has 2 security guards
Why not more? Because no one is willing to work the that little. its around 11.00$ an hour in the blistering heat. and many guard would rather take better jobs
They also refused to hire perfectly qualified EMT who asked for more because she was a registered nurse looking for quick work before her certificate comes

I think work condition relative to pay is more accurate. When I had to choose between two jobs because scheduling wasn't working out, I picked the one where the supervisors showed the employees a modicum of respect (i.e. not Target) even though I made more in a week working there*. No one wants to work in blistering heat period. You might do it for the right amount, but lacking that why would you choose to? Having worked a flat top in high school, it kind of sucks so I can see why people would choose moving items from point A to point B in an air conditioned store over working a fryer even if the former paid a few bucks less. In my university town the McDonalds had a similar issue but from what I heard the whole issue there was the manager people who had worked there told me she'd yell and curse at employees, and who wants to work with that even for a nice hourly rate?

The thing I really don't get though is my current local Walmart. People come in asking if we're hiring. I field the question maybe two or three times a week. The local area used to depend on a jeans factory for work but the factory closed down so the economic outlook is pretty bad and lots of people are still looking for steady jobs. We say we're hiring, because we're told we need more associates, but hardly anyone gets hired. We've brought on maybe two new employees in the past three months and one of them already got fired for not coming to work XD

I don't know what the dealio is

*Target paid exactly minimum wage, but gave a full 40 hour work week, 15 more than I was getting at my other job that paid several dollars above minimum, so Target ended up paying more total with the extra hours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:


I've read some things about this recently. The best explanation I've seen is that while employers have openings, they aren't always as competitive as they could be with their wages because they don't trust that workers will stick around, etc. Meanwhile, workers aren't willing to move to where jobs are or leave current positions because they don't trust that employers and positions are stable, and aren't impressed with the wages.

So basically a cold war of sorts between employers and prospective employees fueled by distrust. At least in some industries and situations.

This seems really plausible too though. Hadn't quite thought of that, cause I sure do often look at potential openings and ask myself "how long might this last?" I've thrown out applying for some that I thought were too iffy, mostly sales and marketing positions that seemed kind of shady.

I definitely fall in the "Xillenial" range.

I was born in the early 80s, I got my first cellphone for Christmas in 2000, September 11th happened after I graduated high school, I went straight into the workforce with a union job immediately after high school, I moved out at 18, I got married young (24), bought a house, and had kids young (25). The closest I come to being a "stereotypical Millennial" is the fact that I moved back home shortly after I turned 20. I was living in Las Vegas when I got out of high school and my family decided to move back to Virginia and I didn't want to go because I had a serious girlfriend, I was already in an apprenticeship, and I had a band. I lived out there for a year and a half by myself, but neither the girlfriend or the band panned out so I left. I stayed with my parents for a little while (and paid rent) so I could save up some money to get a decent apartment (rent was almost double in Northern Virginia compared to Las Vegas).

My wife and I have a good jobs, a nice townhouse, and most importantly, a decent retirement plan. I lucked out by having family in the building trades otherwise I probably would have never heard about it.

 gorgon wrote:

Obviously it depends on one's particulars. But you can at least search for jobs in other areas thanks to the wonders of the interwebz. Even back when I was young, struggling, and looking for the right kind of work, I had a phone interview for a job 700 miles away. I didn't necessarily want to move there, but if it was going to be an opportunity for me, then it was worth exploring. And if one is actually poor with a small apartment, then a U-Haul rental should suffice for getting one from point A to point B. That's what I did when I ultimately moved 300 miles for a job that was a lateral move (and overall a loss for me since I was going from a shared apartment to footing the bill on my own). But that move also had the promise of more opportunity and it ultimately paid off.

If you can afford the internet, and have some means to apply for a job in another area (you presumably need to travel on your own dime for any in-person interviews).
Then it assumes you can afford the U-Haul rental, can afford to afford to drive (less youth in the UK are learning to drive because it's so expensive), and can afford the various additional trips you'd need to get the U-Haul back to where you started or go and get your own car (if you have one).

Sure, the bar on that stuff is all pretty low, but for the people who are already struggling to get by, an extra bus fare might be out of reach for them.

I am in full agreement re: the issues of successfully finding work in the current climate and the total lack of familiarity with the problems impacting the world of Gen Y and Millennials often exhibited by the generations above, but how many people really can't afford access to the internet? The people we get to help us excavate in Iraq that live in the nearby farming villages have the internet - most of the kids have smart phones.

Whether you can utilise the access to applications and jobhunting it gives you is another matter, of course, but the number of people who can't afford to get online in a G20 country must be infinitesimally small.

Surely a lot of these complaints are based on being working class rather than being a from a particular generation though?

I've seen enough 'grim oop north' dramas to know that being a working class family in the 60's 70's and 80's was pretty gak, so I don't it also being tough now is any evidence of a generational shift.
I think comparing middle class baby boomers to working class people now is a false equivalence.

I think what the baby boomers are picking up on is that the hoi polloi are a lot more willing to speak out and identify where they are being taken advantage of nowadays, instead just relying on the unions to flight their battles.
I'm all for a bit of stiff upper lip, but highlighting where people are being exploited is a good thing and shouldn't be criticised.

I think there are people who want an easy ride, and when you see things in the paper like recently were a chap was claiming benefits whilst claiming Mt. Kilimanjaro it is easy to pounce on the exceptions, rather than considering the majority who do work hard and kick on in life.

Working class does have something to do with it. Up North in the good old days of black lung and TB had young workers often following in the family trade. Textiles, metal work and all forms of complex manufacturing were carried out in what was genuinely a northern power house. That's before we mention the distribution of coal fields in the UK.

A few generations ago a young man would now what his career was going to be before he left school (wasn't that optional as young as 14 back then?). He knew he'd never be rich, but he'd earn enough to have a wife and family.

Now those industries and traditional work roles have gone. As too have the days of only needing one person in the family to be the bread winner (it isn't sexism that made me specify man in the previous paragraph). It is easy, and lazy, to blame government at the time for that loss of industry, but the march of future history is not well known for its sentimentality and no governent can stop it.

There's a reason that people back in the day were willing to work all hours down a pit but nobody today wants to flip burgers in a McGrease (hint for anyone who's not keeping up, it's not because the youth of today are lazy).

 Kroem wrote:
Surely a lot of these complaints are based on being working class rather than being a from a particular generation though?

That's because everyone bought into the narrative that if you strive and work hard anyone can be middle class. While in real life many people born into middle class struggle to fit the definition without assistance from the previous generation.

nfe wrote:
how many people really can't afford access to the internet?

Probably most of us at the rate the cable companies are beating down the barrier to price increases

Whether you can utilise the access to applications and jobhunting it gives you is another matter, of course, but the number of people who can't afford to get online in a G20 country must be infinitesimally small.

Even if you can't afford your own internet there's so many places at the moment offering free wifi that I don't think not owning your own connection would prevent you from being able to check email and send in applications. Just go to the closest McDonalds and get something off the dollar menu... you know before our "aversion" to fast food sends the whole industry out of business

Kroem wrote:Surely a lot of these complaints are based on being working class rather than being a from a particular generation though?

Part of it, but you have to look at how the economics have worked out over the last 30 years.

Used to be one person with a rudimentary 9 to 5 job could support a family, own a home, a car, and save/invest money all at once. That of course wasn't everyone in the Boomers generation. People were still living in poverty and always have, but the 40s, 50s, and 60s saw an unprecendented burst of upward mobility in much of the Western World and especially in America. Every generation might have its struggles but I don't think there's any denying that when Boomers were young they were entering into one of the most open and upwardly mobile economic landscapes of any Americans who ever lived. By the tail end of Gen X that had begun drying up, and now that Gen Y is hitting the beaches we're quickly finding that the landscape is much harsher and many of us are sliding down the class ladder. Today two people working a combined 80 hours a week might be able to scrape by with two kids, a house, two cars, and then have nothing left over because they're living pay check to pay check (now 33-45% of the American population depending how you calculate "pay check to pay check", but over 50% of Millennials are in this bracket). That's not everyone sure, but it's a complete reversal of the kind of life style that became the standard of American culture and the ideal 50 years ago.

If more Millennials are living working class than the generations before them, it's not really an inapt comparison especially since those of us stuck there are likely the ones complaining about it XD. And in a sort of way the trade off there is that Gen Y has entered into an America where you can actually live a really high standard of living compared to much of the world even while making absolute gak for money. I can still afford nice luxuries here and there, and I don't exactly have to starve myself to make ends meet. The issue is that a single unforeseen expense can completely destroy me, and I have no capability to save or invest money or build a better life lacking a better job or higher wage.

You know the UN defines poverty as having too little money to make choices. While the US Census calculates its poverty threshold based on a 60s originated algorithm fixed to food prices that says the poverty rate is 14% and the absolute poverty rate is something like 1.5%, if we were to use the UN definition then over 1/3 of the American population lives in poverty because it is unable to make choices. The choices are fixed by the limitations of income, and while proposing that is quite hyperbolic I think it reveals a lot about how much things have changed. Food is no where near my highest expense. I pay more in car insurance alone than I do on food each month.

To get to that post-war level of prosperity again, we just need to destroy all competition through carpet bombing the industrial heartlands and killing most of their work force age populations without them doing the same back to us. Just like what happened in WWII for the U.S.!

I actually think the Boomers and the economic growth and prosperity of that time was the historical exception and not the rule.

That said, I have never seen wage increases in my lifetime. We have only seen wage erosion since their height in 1977. That is going to leave a big impact on a generation of workers, even if some break out of the averages.

The post-war boom was due to massive amounts of Keynesianism through the Marshall Plan, the need to rebuild vast amounts of infrastructure, and absorb demobbed servicemen back into the civilian economy, largely directed (in Europe) by government intervention.

It also helped that women were sent back to the kitchen sink in their millions.

Once austerity was over, things went pretty well until the oil shock of the 1970s.