Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post Reply
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22516
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Jennifer » 22 May 2017, 19:04

JasonL wrote:There are too many variables in there. I'm not at all addressing the undegreed experience. What college, why are bikinis the only possible job, don't know Virginia, is there a roommate etc. the risk is the same - bankruptcy at worst.
Bikinis were not "the only possible job" even for me then, but I was unskilled and only able to work part-time around a full-time college schedule. And then, as now, working for minimum wage or slightly above it was not enough to support oneself and go to college. Also, the risk was more than mere bankruptcy; had things gone badly -- say, I had an injury, broke a leg and couldn't work for awhile -- I could well have ended up homeless, were I unable to make money to pay the rent.

My first couple of not-with-parents living situations did involve roommates -- but even with them to split the rent and utilities, minimum wage wouldn't cut it, especially since my main focus was on school and homework.

As for what college, it was the cheapest four-year school in the state. Lower tuition costs were not an option no matter what school I went to -- I was not paying my way through an Ivy League school. (Nowadays, even a community college is more expensive in real dollars than my four-year school was then -- even assuming this 19-year-old today starts out at a CC and transfers to a four-year school junior year, she's still going to face higher tuition costs than I did.)

Basically, I'm saying that since I could reasonably expect to make more money while also facing lower fixed costs, it was easier (less risky) for me than it would be for an equivalent person today, who has less expectation of earning money while facing higher fixed costs in many ways. Would you say this a sensible assessment, or an "incoherent" one?
"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

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22516
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Jennifer » 22 May 2017, 19:23

Th 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. Some aspects of our system are great and should be left alone, while other things aren't working so well and need fixing. Food is much cheaper -- that's great! Housing is more expensive -- that sucks. Consumer appliances are cheaper and better -- that's great! Education costs more -- that sucks, especially when more career fields require that education. Average wages have gone down -- that sucks. Yet the amount of entertainment one can get even with those lower wages is higher -- that's great!

Is it that you fear fixing the things that are worse must necessarily entail giving up the things that are better? Because there's no reason to think thus, anymore than (for example) a Baby Boomer would've had to think "The only way we can have good jobs and affordable houses is if we give up television and other things our parents lacked, and make do with our radios" or a Gen Xer would've had to think "If we want our college education to be as affordable as it was for our parents, we have to give up our color TVs and settle for black-and-white, as they had. And no video games, of course -- if we want to visit an arcade, it can only have skee-ball and pinball, as it was for our parents. No cable TV, either -- with more than three channels to choose from, it's no wonder we're all slacker-losers happy to mindlessly absorb all these entertainment options our parents did not have, in lieu of working hard and building our careers. And don't even get me started on VCRs and how they have spoiled us, compared to our parents. We can watch a TV show whenever we want, whereas our parents could only watch it when it aired, and if they missed it, too bad -- so of course we're going to be lazier and less accomplished than them, with all these amazing entertainment-on-demand options they lacked!"

No. I don't think that's the case at all.
"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

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22516
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Jennifer » 22 May 2017, 20:08

nicole wrote: And I mean let's remember the first post in this thread. Developers here are betting they can charge $1,000/month for a single room and bathroom, because millennials would rather overpay to live in a new building in a gentrifying neighborhood "without a roommate." You can rent a perfectly nice, respectable if not stylish 1br in the building next door to me for $800/month, in a less hip neighborhood but literally one block away from Lake Michigan, no roommates required. I'm sure the Logan Square building will fill up too.
I don't know about Chicago, but in the Atlanta metro area where I live, "live with a roommate" is not as easy as it sounds -- I've mentioned before that in my apartment complex (which is very cheap by local standards -- we're paying less money for a 3BR/2BR than the GMA median/average for a one-bedroom, though in a not-at-all-nice neighborhood), roommate situations are only allowed if one individual roommate can foot the bill himself -- you're required to prove a salary at least 3X the rent, but if you have two individuals, each of whom can only afford 2X the rent, this complex will not consider their combined salary unless those two people are married. So let's say that by the 3X standard you can "only" afford $500 in rent each month, and you want to team up with two others who can only afford $500 apiece -- the three of you may not join forces to split the bill on this $950 3br, even though your individual share of the rent -- about $317 -- is well within your affordability zone in addition to lower utility costs because you're splitting them three ways. (I completely understand the landlord/manager's perspective on this -- I'm guessing that if someone skips out on the lease, going after "a married couple" in court is easier than going after "two individuals" or whatever -- but it still sucks from the perspective of a single person trying to get ahead.)

Whereas if this complex were to, for example, divvy up this 3BR and rent individual rooms for "only" 500 per month -- especially if each bedroom had its own attached bathroom -- at least the individual renters could still save money on utilities and other shared costs. And it would do no good to sneer at the fools who are renting a single bedroom in a crappy neighborhood for $500 or $600 per month rather than split a 3BR that costs only $950. (I've no doubt that some true roommate scenarios are available if you look around and know where to look; I'm simply saying "get a roommate; split the costs" is not as easy as it sounds.) And living with a total stranger you found on Craigslist is risky -- back in my roommate days, my roommates were people I met through school or through mutual friends. If, Zod forbid, something happened to Jeff and I had to find a roommate who is a complete stranger, I would prefer the option of a private bedroom/bathroom, preferably with a door I could lock, just in case my new roommate turns out to be untrustworthy.

Like most, if not all, of us here, I'm at the age where adults traditionally bask in saying "Kids These Days, amirite? Lemme list all the ways they're not as good as we were back in the day." At the same time, I don't want to be too quick to think "Oh, yeah, if anything they're doing makes no sense to me, the problem HAS to be with them; I refuse to consider maybe there's something here I'm just not getting." It might be the opposite -- there's something we're not getting or not seeing, regarding the obstacles they have to face.

Tl;dr: make sure you're not being this guy:
Image
"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

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22516
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Jennifer » 22 May 2017, 20:11

Come to think of it, IIRC even my roommate situations back in the day weren't true roommates as is "Individuals who can't afford the rent individually join up together so they can"; there was always either one roommate who could afford the whole thing but simply wanted to share costs, or (in one college case), my roommate's parents co-signed the lease.
"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

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22516
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Jennifer » 22 May 2017, 20:30

Apologies for what would be five posts in a row, if nobody else comments in the meantime: I think I misread Nicole's complaint -- not "people saving money with roommates" but "people paying MORE for roommates than a single apartment would be." If so: that's not necessarily a sign of "Kids these days being irresponsible." Could be other things: people paying more to team up in a "safe" neighborhood rather than live alone in a sketchier one (In Sheila Levine is Dead and Living in New York, Sheila talks about how she and her would-be roommates teamed up to live in a building with a doorman, rather than a cheaper one without -- this was a book by and for Baby Boomers); could even be people not dealing with their own costs of living, but people whose parents are subsidizing them while they get their start. Upthread I mentioned a college roommate whose parents paid all of her bills and gave her a spending allowance, and she criticized me for being less spendy than she was; however, I'd say she was not an example of "typical spoiled Generation Xers, amirite?" but "typical rich kid who doesn't understand what it's like to work for a living or face the possibility of not having enough money, because her parents have completely insulated her from this."
"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

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22450
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by JasonL » 22 May 2017, 20:34

I would characterize my position as "things are not uniquely bad for the college educated these days, and actually pretty good, all in (i.e. including the consumption side)".

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22516
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Jennifer » 22 May 2017, 20:46

JasonL wrote:I would characterize my position as "things are not uniquely bad for the college educated these days, and actually pretty good, all in (i.e. including the consumption side)".
Whereas I'd say "a couple of things are worse-than-before for the college educated these days, and even worse for the uneducated." Average wages are lower than in previous generations. For those who go to college, average cost of education is higher. A lot of cities -- many of which happen to be "the place to be, if you want to pursue certain career options" are insanely expensive compared to Days Gone By. Not enough to amount to "total catastrophe" or "DOOOM" or other incoherent and/or hyperbolic claims, but enough to offer a theory other than "Kids these days just aren't as good as they were in my day" to answer such questions as "Why are so many young adults still living with their parents" or "Why are so many of them still living with roommates well beyond the former 'independent living' age" or (assuming Jason's complaint is correct) "Why are so many of them less likely to take the risk of moving to a new city to look for work?" -- I say that rather than leap to the conclusion "Kids These Days aren't as good as in our day," consider that it is because "Kids These Days are facing problems we did not, or facing the same problems we did at their age, only bigger." College really is more expensive. Housing costs compared to wages are too. Adding college debt to that higher housing cost makes it even worse. And, while smartphones and cheap/free entertainment and cheap appliances are genuinely wonderful to have, they are not so wonderful as to completely negate the problems of "Higher costs, higher debts, and lower wages."
"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

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22450
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by JasonL » 22 May 2017, 20:55

I don't think it's that exotic of a conclusion. Their parents were wealthy and micromanaged their time. The context affects perceptions about how hard something should be and what sorts of measures actually exist out there. There used to be a carrot and a stick to going through the suck of moving out and career development and life choices and all that. It's different when your context is that you have to do it period. More choices not to do it is all well and good, but it can have long run consequences. Most of this is informed by the decade long unwillingness to go into jobs that were paying or move to where jobs exist whereas that used to happen.

In the end we will probably only agree that we should do things to enable more housing to be available in urban areas. I agree 100% there. I'm just not going to act like those ultra expensive urban areas are the only places anyone could ever live with a good job.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8930
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by nicole » 22 May 2017, 21:09

Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote: And I mean let's remember the first post in this thread. Developers here are betting they can charge $1,000/month for a single room and bathroom, because millennials would rather overpay to live in a new building in a gentrifying neighborhood "without a roommate." You can rent a perfectly nice, respectable if not stylish 1br in the building next door to me for $800/month, in a less hip neighborhood but literally one block away from Lake Michigan, no roommates required. I'm sure the Logan Square building will fill up too.
I don't know about Chicago, but in the Atlanta metro area where I live, "live with a roommate" is not as easy as it sounds -- I've mentioned before that in my apartment complex (which is very cheap by local standards -- we're paying less money for a 3BR/2BR than the GMA median/average for a one-bedroom, though in a not-at-all-nice neighborhood), roommate situations are only allowed if one individual roommate can foot the bill himself -- you're required to prove a salary at least 3X the rent, but if you have two individuals, each of whom can only afford 2X the rent, this complex will not consider their combined salary unless those two people are married. So let's say that by the 3X standard you can "only" afford $500 in rent each month, and you want to team up with two others who can only afford $500 apiece -- the three of you may not join forces to split the bill on this $950 3br, even though your individual share of the rent -- about $317 -- is well within your affordability zone in addition to lower utility costs because you're splitting them three ways. (I completely understand the landlord/manager's perspective on this -- I'm guessing that if someone skips out on the lease, going after "a married couple" in court is easier than going after "two individuals" or whatever -- but it still sucks from the perspective of a single person trying to get ahead.)

Whereas if this complex were to, for example, divvy up this 3BR and rent individual rooms for "only" 500 per month -- especially if each bedroom had its own attached bathroom -- at least the individual renters could still save money on utilities and other shared costs. And it would do no good to sneer at the fools who are renting a single bedroom in a crappy neighborhood for $500 or $600 per month rather than split a 3BR that costs only $950. (I've no doubt that some true roommate scenarios are available if you look around and know where to look; I'm simply saying "get a roommate; split the costs" is not as easy as it sounds.) And living with a total stranger you found on Craigslist is risky -- back in my roommate days, my roommates were people I met through school or through mutual friends. If, Zod forbid, something happened to Jeff and I had to find a roommate who is a complete stranger, I would prefer the option of a private bedroom/bathroom, preferably with a door I could lock, just in case my new roommate turns out to be untrustworthy.

Like most, if not all, of us here, I'm at the age where adults traditionally bask in saying "Kids These Days, amirite? Lemme list all the ways they're not as good as we were back in the day." At the same time, I don't want to be too quick to think "Oh, yeah, if anything they're doing makes no sense to me, the problem HAS to be with them; I refuse to consider maybe there's something here I'm just not getting." It might be the opposite -- there's something we're not getting or not seeing, regarding the obstacles they have to face.
Is there some reason I'm supposed to believe that real estate developers won't try to rip people off based on neighborhood cool factors just because those people are millennials? Do you think I'm talking about "kids these days" and not people the same age as me? Did you read the part of my post where I said you could get your very own 1br for less money than these "bedroom-only" units, which, by the way, also had far less square footage than my first Chicago apartment -- so your point about landlord demands about roommates is irrelevant? (Also, seriously, if that's your issue, you go to Pilsen and you rent a room in a duplex owned by the landlord, you have a security deposit and he doesn't give a shit.) And did you look at the prices I gave at all? Because they're nothing like your examples. I am in this market. They are real prices. I literally helped another millennial find a super-cheap living situation and move out here, sight unseen, and in with a roommate, within a week, so he could go to law school, just a couple years ago. The development you are defending as somehow a frugal option is in the stupidest hipster neighborhood in town and will feature a "reception desk that is more like a cruise ship than a hotel."
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22516
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Jennifer » 22 May 2017, 21:14

JasonL wrote:I don't think it's that exotic of a conclusion. Their parents were wealthy and micromanaged their time. The context affects perceptions about how hard something should be and what sorts of measures actually exist out there.
Helicopter parents are to blame for some trends you'll see in Kids These Days, no doubt. But not all Millennials had helicopter parents; those are simply the modern equivalent of my spoiled Gen X college roommate who didn't understand "working for a living" or "refusing certain fun things because they cost too much" because her parents still supported her. That's a spoiled-brat thing, not a "Kids today in general" thing.
There used to be a carrot and a stick to going through the suck of moving out and career development and life choices and all that. It's different when your context is that you have to do it period. More choices not to do it is all well and good, but it can have long run consequences.
Indeed, but I think you're overlooking the short-term consequences of failure, especially for those who lack a safety net, or their net is scantier than what previous generations might have enjoyed. Perhaps you overlooked this previous bit of back-and-forth between us upthread?
Jennifer wrote:
JasonL wrote: There are too many variables in there. I'm not at all addressing the undegreed experience. What college, why are bikinis the only possible job, don't know Virginia, is there a roommate etc. the risk is the same - bankruptcy at worst.
Bikinis were not "the only possible job" even for me then, but I was unskilled and only able to work part-time around a full-time college schedule. And then, as now, working for minimum wage or slightly above it was not enough to support oneself and go to college. Also, the risk was more than mere bankruptcy; had things gone badly -- say, I had an injury, broke a leg and couldn't work for awhile -- I could well have ended up homeless, were I unable to make money to pay the rent.
Which is why I keep saying -- and do not believe I am "incoherent" in saying so -- that certain risks are bigger today. Granted, I was an outlier in my day (or rather, my parents were outliers); when I left my parents' home I did not merely face the risks of "what if I can't cut it, and have to move back home and feel like a failure," nor even "What if I have to go bankrupt?"; if I could not pay my bills I faced the no-joke risk of being homeless without so much as a parental couch to crash on. The risk of having no place to live is much bigger than the risk of having merely a shitty place to live. The risk of moving to a new city and being unable to find any work that pays enough to live on is greater than the risk of finding work that pays enough, but it's boring and unfulfilling. Based on your frequent mention of "steak and blowjobs" in this and similar threads, you seem to think people are shying away from the risk of "The job is enough to get by, but it's boring and unfulfilling." I'm suggesting that, no -- the actual risk is "Not only does the job suck, it doesn't even pay enough to get by, especially not with the high student debts said jobholder is likely to have." THAT, I maintain, explains why people are less willing to leap into the unknown than people were in previous generations. "Go where the jobs are" is not as easy as you make it out to be, and it does entail more risk than it did for people in previous generations.
"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

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15896
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by lunchstealer » 22 May 2017, 21:20

Vaguely related.

"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22450
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by JasonL » 22 May 2017, 21:31

I don't get it did you have it harder than the kids today or did they have it harder than you? Yup some people could go homeless. I could have. Almost got evicted in Japan. Ran out of food money a couple of times. You could have. Kids today can. If they move they face adult consequences. Can still borrow from mom and dad if they need to, some of them. Some might try and cone back home. That's how it works. I don't get why the consequences are so much worse now. Same shit. Life.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22516
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Jennifer » 22 May 2017, 22:01

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
Shem wrote:
JasonL wrote: 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?
Last edited by Jennifer on 22 May 2017, 22:42, edited 1 time in total.
"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

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22516
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Jennifer » 22 May 2017, 22:29

nicole wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
nicole wrote: And I mean let's remember the first post in this thread. Developers here are betting they can charge $1,000/month for a single room and bathroom, because millennials would rather overpay to live in a new building in a gentrifying neighborhood "without a roommate." You can rent a perfectly nice, respectable if not stylish 1br in the building next door to me for $800/month, in a less hip neighborhood but literally one block away from Lake Michigan, no roommates required. I'm sure the Logan Square building will fill up too.
I don't know about Chicago, but in the Atlanta metro area where I live, "live with a roommate" is not as easy as it sounds -- I've mentioned before that in my apartment complex (which is very cheap by local standards -- we're paying less money for a 3BR/2BR than the GMA median/average for a one-bedroom, though in a not-at-all-nice neighborhood), roommate situations are only allowed if one individual roommate can foot the bill himself -- you're required to prove a salary at least 3X the rent, but if you have two individuals, each of whom can only afford 2X the rent, this complex will not consider their combined salary unless those two people are married. So let's say that by the 3X standard you can "only" afford $500 in rent each month, and you want to team up with two others who can only afford $500 apiece -- the three of you may not join forces to split the bill on this $950 3br, even though your individual share of the rent -- about $317 -- is well within your affordability zone in addition to lower utility costs because you're splitting them three ways. (I completely understand the landlord/manager's perspective on this -- I'm guessing that if someone skips out on the lease, going after "a married couple" in court is easier than going after "two individuals" or whatever -- but it still sucks from the perspective of a single person trying to get ahead.)

Whereas if this complex were to, for example, divvy up this 3BR and rent individual rooms for "only" 500 per month -- especially if each bedroom had its own attached bathroom -- at least the individual renters could still save money on utilities and other shared costs. And it would do no good to sneer at the fools who are renting a single bedroom in a crappy neighborhood for $500 or $600 per month rather than split a 3BR that costs only $950. (I've no doubt that some true roommate scenarios are available if you look around and know where to look; I'm simply saying "get a roommate; split the costs" is not as easy as it sounds.) And living with a total stranger you found on Craigslist is risky -- back in my roommate days, my roommates were people I met through school or through mutual friends. If, Zod forbid, something happened to Jeff and I had to find a roommate who is a complete stranger, I would prefer the option of a private bedroom/bathroom, preferably with a door I could lock, just in case my new roommate turns out to be untrustworthy.

Like most, if not all, of us here, I'm at the age where adults traditionally bask in saying "Kids These Days, amirite? Lemme list all the ways they're not as good as we were back in the day." At the same time, I don't want to be too quick to think "Oh, yeah, if anything they're doing makes no sense to me, the problem HAS to be with them; I refuse to consider maybe there's something here I'm just not getting." It might be the opposite -- there's something we're not getting or not seeing, regarding the obstacles they have to face.
Is there some reason I'm supposed to believe that real estate developers won't try to rip people off based on neighborhood cool factors just because those people are millennials? Do you think I'm talking about "kids these days" and not people the same age as me? Did you read the part of my post where I said you could get your very own 1br for less money than these "bedroom-only" units, which, by the way, also had far less square footage than my first Chicago apartment -- so your point about landlord demands about roommates is irrelevant? (Also, seriously, if that's your issue, you go to Pilsen and you rent a room in a duplex owned by the landlord, you have a security deposit and he doesn't give a shit.) And did you look at the prices I gave at all? Because they're nothing like your examples. I am in this market. They are real prices. I literally helped another millennial find a super-cheap living situation and move out here, sight unseen, and in with a roommate, within a week, so he could go to law school, just a couple years ago. The development you are defending as somehow a frugal option is in the stupidest hipster neighborhood in town and will feature a "reception desk that is more like a cruise ship than a hotel."

You may have missed or overlooked the post I made shortly after that one:
Jennifer wrote:Apologies for what would be five posts in a row, if nobody else comments in the meantime: I think I misread Nicole's complaint -- not "people saving money with roommates" but "people paying MORE for roommates than a single apartment would be." If so: that's not necessarily a sign of "Kids these days being irresponsible." Could be other things: people paying more to team up in a "safe" neighborhood rather than live alone in a sketchier one (In Sheila Levine is Dead and Living in New York, Sheila talks about how she and her would-be roommates teamed up to live in a building with a doorman, rather than a cheaper one without -- this was a book by and for Baby Boomers); could even be people not dealing with their own costs of living, but people whose parents are subsidizing them while they get their start. Upthread I mentioned a college roommate whose parents paid all of her bills and gave her a spending allowance, and she criticized me for being less spendy than she was; however, I'd say she was not an example of "typical spoiled Generation Xers, amirite?" but "typical rich kid who doesn't understand what it's like to work for a living or face the possibility of not having enough money, because her parents have completely insulated her from this."
"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

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22450
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by JasonL » 23 May 2017, 10:20

There objectively are lotsa job places to go. Over and over and over again I've described them. They just aren't in your favorite places so they don't count or something. I've seen no evidence or credible argument in any of the lo these long threads how its harder to move to DFW or Arizona than it ever was ever in history. It's harder to move to super expensive places and that sucks but please stop saying those are the only job places in the country because its not true.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22516
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Jennifer » 23 May 2017, 15:09

JasonL wrote:There objectively are lotsa job places to go. Over and over and over again I've described them. They just aren't in your favorite places so they don't count or something. I've seen no evidence or credible argument in any of the lo these long threads how its harder to move to DFW or Arizona than it ever was ever in history.
IN all those threads you've seen many arguments -- not just from me, either -- pointing out that moving anyplace costs money, which already-poor people are unlikely to have. You've also had multiple people ask you such questions as "Where is this region of the US people should move to, that's chock-full of jobs which pay better than they make now -- where is the modern equivalent of the old-time "Move to Detroit, because the city has scads of auto plants where almost anybody can land a good-paying job right away?" Your claim "There are places to go; they're just not in your favorite places so they don't count" is a dishonest strawman --nobody has said such a thing on these threads. Plus, there's a big difference between "Moving someplace because you have a job there" versus "moving someplace to look for a job there." The former is far less of a risk than the latter.

Also, you overlooked my question -- when I said "Some aspects of life today are easier, and some are harder," why or how did you overlook that and ask me whether life today is easier or harder? Why does it have to be an all-or-nothing proposition with you, rather than "easier in some ways, harder in others?"
"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

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15896
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by lunchstealer » 07 Jun 2017, 13:05

So the Millennials are starting to have some positive effects:

Millennials are killing chains like Buffalo Wild Wings and Applebee's

Trigger Warning: Business Insider
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 11292
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Ellie » 08 Jun 2017, 13:06

This is getting a lot of "rah rah!" on my Facebook feed.

It's almost ... like ... you think we should ... let the ... market ... decide?

I'd love to jump in there and say "Yeah! That goes for the arts, too! And small businesses!" but I don't feel like dealing with the resulting shitshow. :D
"NB stands for nota bene do not @ me" - nicole

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24248
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Warren » 08 Jun 2017, 13:35

Ellie wrote:This is getting a lot of "rah rah!" on my Facebook feed.

It's almost ... like ... you think we should ... let the ... market ... decide?

I'd love to jump in there and say "Yeah! That goes for the arts, too! And small businesses!" but I don't feel like dealing with the resulting shitshow. :D
Why you throw small businesses under the bus?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Sandy » 08 Jun 2017, 16:22

Warren wrote:
Ellie wrote:This is getting a lot of "rah rah!" on my Facebook feed.

It's almost ... like ... you think we should ... let the ... market ... decide?

I'd love to jump in there and say "Yeah! That goes for the arts, too! And small businesses!" but I don't feel like dealing with the resulting shitshow. :D
Why you throw small businesses under the bus?
My quintessential example for that was the office supply store in the small town I grew up in. It had prices >30% above the local proto-walmart department store, even worse selection for any common supplies, and run by a family that could be barely arsed to acknowledge you came in. But they were a locally-owned small business so they lasted a lot longer than they should have.

By contrast, the local independent pharmacy up here is one I'll gladly pay some inflated prices for generic Excedrin to, because they know who I am and work hard to get around insurance and doctors screwing up refills and have even given me the considered price when insurance wouldn't pay for something. Also they sometimes have an awesome dog behind the counter to pet.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22450
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by JasonL » 08 Jun 2017, 16:33

The idea that local/small is generally better makes me laugh. The one local bank that used to abuse you on fees and rates? The one local car dealer that still does? They do smile at you and know your name tho.

Even with food - the best local places are of course better than chains, but chains in rural areas are often by far the best places to eat in those areas. That greasy spoon is greasy yo.

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17140
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Hugh Akston » 12 Jun 2017, 11:11

We come not to praise the list of things that millennials are killing, but to bury them
1. The 9 to 5 work week

Millennials are demanding more flexibility in their jobs, and now nearly 40% of U.S. workers can work from home at least one day a week, according to a 2016 study. They also don’t unplug at 5 p.m., with 68% saying they check work emails from home. The extension of our work lives into the home may concern some who are more tied to the traditional 40-hour workweek, but studies show employees in a flexible workplace can be more productive and happier with their careers.
7. Golf

Another sport millennials have been blamed for doing away with is golf. They are playing fewer rounds and even watching it on TV less frequently, the Guardian reported in 2016. In fact, it is estimated that if such apathy continues, golf as we know it could disappear in 52 years.
11. Marriage

Millennials are marrying less often and later in life. With more debt to overcome, millennials are frequently living at home with their parents or with roommates according to analyses from real estate listing site Trulia. They’re also pushing off marriage until they are financially stable, which could be years for many of them. Don’t blame them, however. Blame the $1.3 trillion in student debt that college graduates in America are currently shouldering.
14. Homeownership

Perhaps the most prominent norm millennials are accused of undermining: Homeownership. If they’re unable to afford vacations, they certainly can’t put a down payment on a house in most places. Under crippling student loan debt, many millennials are opting instead to move back in with parents or have a roommate long into their 30s. Given stagnant wages and rising house prices, however, who can blame them?
16. Diamonds

The diamond industry has struggled to woo millennials to the luxury item, with companies like De Beers slashing prices by 9% to reach out to the generation, which prefers to spend money on experiences like travel rather than expensive goods, the Daily Beast reported. “Young consumers increasingly shun the taint of conflict and exploitation, and middlemen have been hit as banks balk at gemstones’ untraceability,” according to The Economist.
Image
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 15363
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by dhex » 12 Jun 2017, 12:59

i think the marriage/student debt thing is a stretch. marriage rates are falling in general, and globally to boot.

why bother with it when it's no longer socially required and presumes a permanence to relationships that doesn't necessarily exist?
"I do wear my New Balance tennis shoes when I'm wearing cargo shorts, though, because truth in advertising." - lunch

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12891
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by Highway » 12 Jun 2017, 13:04

So I get the idea that Gen X gets away without getting the 'blame' for these things because everyone expected them to go down due to lower population, and what's being lamented in these industry-serving articles is more that they're more upset that that things aren't going back up as population cohorts move into the target demographic for these things, and that's why they're blaming Millenials. But to me it's more that all these things have fallen out of favor in general, and are maybe being propped up by the Boomer's Last Vestiges rather than some clear "Everyone likes this except for Millenials" idea.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 15363
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Fragments of an avotoast anthropology

Post by dhex » 12 Jun 2017, 13:05

i mean yeah snake people are annoying and all that but i mean, fuck golf. what a stupid fucking game/networking/sexual harassment opportunity
"I do wear my New Balance tennis shoes when I'm wearing cargo shorts, though, because truth in advertising." - lunch

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests