Another thing, Jason -- not trying to pile on here, more trying to avoid retreading the same ground we've already worn ruts in -- your argument "people need to move where the jobs are, people need to migrate as they did before, people need to just try and make an effort" has been a common refrain from you for years, yet no matter how many times people here say "It's not that easy, and here are the reasons why" you handwave those reasons away. Here's an example from last June:
http://grylliade.org/viewtopic.php?f=4& ... 00#p337312
I'm talking about the 60s-80s just as much as the 20s.
In the 60s-80s, there were large numbers of manufacturing jobs that paid several times what people were likely to make by staying where they were. People weren't moving away from places that offered no jobs, they were moving to places that did, and moreover, that had jobs that would pay very well. That's not the case now, and it isn't going to be. And it's not reasonable to expect people to move in order to moderately increase their chances of getting a job that may or may not exist, may or may not pay more, and will most assuredly wind up costing them more up front when they have to pay for support they had received for free from family and friends.
You can keep casting about for reasons why this situation is evidence of some moral failing if you want, but doing it by making direct comparisons to eras that you're the first to argue are gone, and were sui generis in the first place (like the postwar era) makes it all ring rather hollow.
Granted, that subthread was discussing people in general, especially older people with kids to support, not focusing exclusively on young adults/fresh college grads. But the one thing that remains the same, it seems to me, is this: you keep complaining "People today aren't doing the same things people did in days past to improve their lot. Why not?" And always, rather than consider "Maybe it's because things today are somehow different than they were in days past," you always jump to the conclusion "It must be because people today are inherently flawed compared to people in days past." Why aren't we seeing Great Migrations now? Not because there are no lotsa-job centers to migrate to, no; it's because Millennials refuse to settle for anything less than "steak and blowjobs," as you say. Why are fewer adults moving out of their parents' houses? Not because it's inherently harder/more expensive to do so, but because they're spoiled and lazy. And if I say otherwise, I'm "incoherent."
I understand and empathize with your fear that people might demand we go "Full Sanders" as you put it -- Zod knows, I do not
want to see us turn into Venezuela -- but saying "People these days do
have some cause for complaint" is not synonymous with "Therefore, we must go Full Sanders to make their complaints go away." Indeed, looking at what problems exist and finding ways to fix them is the best way to avoid going Full Sanders, let alone Full Venezuela -- just as tending to and treating a small wound is the best way to avoid having it fester and grow worse. Ignoring problems or denying they exist won't make those problems go away; if anything, it's likely to make those problems grow.
And I remind you: this isn't an all-or-nothing deal, where either "everything sucks" or "everything is awesome." It's not "everything is harder than The Old Days" or "everything is easier." There is a middle ground -- some things better, some worse, some easier, some more difficult. I am fully aware that food and consumer goods are cheaper and better these days than they used to be, and need not be reminded of this. I am also aware that technology is better; I had no internet connection when I was a kid, whereas now I'm using one to have this very discussion. These things are good, and I don't want to see them go away. Nor do I think they will. However, despite these good things, I maintain that some aspects of modern life are more difficult for people than they were in times past -- and that
is why people these days are not repeating the strategies used by people in days past to improve their lot in life. It's not because people these days are more prone to certain character flaws or moral failings.
I don't get it did you have it harder than the kids today or did they have it harder than you?
Depends on which aspect of life you're focusing on; it's not an either-or thing. Paying in-state college tuition? I had it much
easier than today's kids, because in real, inflation-adjusted dollars, my tuition costs were much
lower. Buying food, and learning how to cook (for those who lack that skill)? Probably easier today, since food is a bit cheaper and the Internet makes it much easier to learn how to cook than my haphazard method of making do with cheap old cookbooks I found in thrift stores. Entertainment is definitely easier for kids today -- I had to pay for my music, or at least pay for cassette tapes to record songs off the radio, ditto "pay for movie tickets or video rentals, or at least pay for VHS tapes to record off the TV." No free downloads or streaming. Housing costs -- probably the same or a little
easier for me, compared to people living in the same area today. (Had I gone to school someplace like New York City or California, I'd say "Housing costs were much
easier for me than for people today.")
In my second post on this page of the thread, I wrote this: "Th[e] thing is, Jason -- I'm saying this in hope of avoiding confusion, or the possibility that perhaps you and I are simply talking past each other -- from where I'm standing, it looks as though you're arguing in favor of what I'd consider a false dichotomy -- either everything is wonderful or everything sucks; either the system we have now is perfect or the system needs to be completely abandoned and we go "full Sanders"; either everything is better than it used to be or everything is worse. Whereas I'm arguing that the truth is in the middle: some things are better/easier than they used to be, other things are worse/harder."
And you responded by posting a comment starting with "I don't get it did you have it harder than the kids today or did they have it harder than you?" Seriously -- what is
it about "Some things are better and some are worse; some things are easier and some are harder" that you find so indigestible? Why does it have
to be "Either kids today have it easier, or we did," rather than it being a mixture of both: easier in some ways, harder in others? It's not
an all-or-nothing dichotomy. Why do you keep thinking it is? Surely you know about such concepts as "trade-offs" or "take the bad with the good" or "gain ground in some areas, lose ground in others": why will you not consider it might
apply to certain generational differences as well?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b