The Boomers definitely had it easier when it comes to housing. They also had better job security, and they could reliably invest for retirement in their prime earning years.
But Boomers are also right that people in their 20s and 30s today in many ways enjoy a lifestyle that they could only dream about. Yes, Boomers could afford to get into the housing market at 24. That also means they were married at 23, paying a mortgage at 24, and starting a family at 25. And back in those days, before we entered a knowledge economy, wages were tethered tightly to experience. So at the time Boomers and earlier generations were starting families, they were making crap money (one of the reasons why air travel with young children was almost unheard of until recently).
Today, there are whole sectors of the economy reliant on the discretionary spending of childless 20-somethings and 30-somethings. A splurge holiday for a 24 year old used to be a ski trip to Whitefish. Now it's the Mayan Riviera. There are dozens of expensive restaurants and cocktail bars in Calgary patronized by 20-somethings and 30-somethings. Those didn't exist 25 years ago. Spending on the average wedding has tripled in the last 20 years. Destination weddings have become a thing. Dining out is far more common than it used to be.
The irony is that many of these things are affordable only because Boomer parents are supporting their kids rent-free, enabling them to spend most of their income on consumables and experiences. Before Millennials came of age, as soon as someone earned enough money to pay for a 1/2 or 1/3 share of rent in an apartment, they were out the door. Now, you have young adults earning 40-70k a year and not paying rent, bills, or groceries.
So both groups are right. Boomers had the big things in life easier due to the post-war boom. And many Millennials enjoy a lifestyle of consumption that was unthinkable 30 years ago.
Again, this isn't really borne out by the evidence. If we take the people aged 25-34 now as a proxy for millenials and compare them to the same age cohort in the early to mid '70s, the spending on the things people are talking about (alcohol, tobacco, eating out, and entertainment/travel) has actually seen a huge drop. Today's 25-34 year olds spend about 11.2% of their income on those categories. In 1972 that number was 15.6%. So as a portion of their income, young adults in the early '70s spent about 40% more on those things than they do today.
As for the millenials making $70K a year and living their parents, they make up such a small share of the population (a fraction of a percent of millenials) that they're not really relevant. True, there are more adult children living with their parents now than in the past, but that has much more to do with economic factors than it does peoples' preferences. When you combine post-secondary education being more expensive, it being far more of a requirement even for entry level jobs than in the past, the increased cost of housing, and the relative dearth of opportunities for young graduates, then it's not surprising that the rate of young adults living with their parents has increased.
As it stands, about 19.5% of people aged 25-34 live with their parents (and this is heavily skewed towards people in the 25-29 age range). Of that group, very few fit the profile people seem to be talking about:
-nearly 60% have some form of post-secondary education
-another 15% are enrolled in school
-only 44% have full time jobs
-more than 75% earn less than $30K a year
-11% have some form of disability
To me, that looks like a group that is mainly made up of people burdened with post secondary school expenses and/or debt who can't find good enough employment to live independently. This is backed up the fact that the rate of 18-34 year olds living with their parents increased by over 30% after 2008. In 2005 the rate was closer to the rate in 1975 than it is to today's.
Last edited by opendoor; 05-05-2018 at 01:38 PM.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
I've had a few, but been watching a few more Peterson videos and I think he fundamentally doesn't understand the differences between free speech, compelled speech, and "chilled" speech, especially in constitutional terms.
I think he speaks to them in theoretical terms more so than pragmatic terms. That is my problem with the likes of Peterson and his ilk, they speak to things in strictly a theoretically biased perspective rather than taking into consideration the reality in which people and theory are forced to live. There is a massive gap between application and theory. Academics kind of piss me off in that regard, because they are not grounded in reality and the application fo the theory they espouse.
I don't know how theoretical it is when Lindsay Shepherd likely would have lost her TA position at Laurier if she hadn't recorded her inquisition. They were threatening her job at the school based on playing a youtube clip from TVO.
The panel in the recording specifically cited the Ontario Human Rights Commision and the fact just airing that clip of Peterson could be construed as a hate crime.
True, there are more adult children living with their parents now than in the past, but that has much more to do with economic factors than it does peoples' preferences. When you combine post-secondary education being more expensive, it being far more of a requirement even for entry level jobs than in the past, the increased cost of housing, and the relative dearth of opportunities for young graduates, then it's not surprising that the rate of young adults living with their parents has increased.
Yes, opportunities for graduates are worse than they were in the 60s and 70s. But are they really worse than they were in the 80s or 90s? One of the problems I have with these comparisons is they're premised on comparing two generations - the Boomers and Millennials - and completely ignore the cohort of people who reached adulthood in the 80s and 90s - Gen X.
Youth unemployment was much higher in the early 90s than it is today (18 per cent vs 11). And if young graduates think it's tough getting established in a career now, they might want to consider what it was like when unemployment in Canada was far higher, and the largest cohort the country has ever seen was 30-50 and in the prime of their working lives, clinging to every position on the ladder. And this before the knowledge economy, back when employers didn't think they had anything to learn from recent graduates and your value as an employee was strictly how many years you had put into your career already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
As it stands, about 19.5% of people aged 25-34 live with their parents (and this is heavily skewed towards people in the 25-29 age range).
Do you have a source for that? Because the Census says that 35% of Canadians aged 25-34 live with a parent. And a Maclean's article from 2011 reported:
Quote:
The most striking change is that a slim majority of Gen Y twenty-somethings now live with their parents (51 per cent). In 1998, fewer than a third (31 per cent) of Gen X twenty-somethings were living at home. In 1986, only 28 per cent of twenty-something boomers were with mom and dad.
To me, that looks like a group that is mainly made up of people burdened with post secondary school expenses and/or debt who can't find good enough employment to live independently. This is backed up the fact that the rate of 18-34 year olds living with their parents increased by over 30% after 2008. In 2005 the rate was closer to the rate in 1975 than it is to today's.
What's good enough employment to live independently? My friends and I all went to college or university, moved out between age 20 and 24, and in our 20s did jobs like barista, commercial painting, golf course maintenance, book store clerk, landscaper, grocery store clerk, etc. We rented in ever-shifting households of 2 to 4, used furniture we dragged out of dumpsters, and had 15 year old TVs. An extravagant night out was pints at the Ship followed by a piece of pizza from the Wicked Wedge. This was pretty normal for 20-somethings in Calgary in the 90s.
And oil and gas was considered a dead-end career when we went to university, so none of us had educations suitable for the energy industry. When the boom hit we saw people 10 years younger than us walk straight out of school into high-paying jobs in the energy industry while we want back to school in our late 20s and early 30s (while still renting) to try to cobble together a viable skill set.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 05-05-2018 at 07:57 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Anyone catch Peterson's appearance on Fox and Friends? Embarrassing.
Oh right, gotta DE-platform all those opposing viewpoints
Talks about 90's Political correctness, and that 60's leftists became the college professors of the current cohort of college grads, and that the leftist thinking is seeping through to companies via HR departments. Basically a repeat of the message.
And here's a different refutation of Peterson's ideas.
__________________
Tacitus: Rara temporum felicitate, ubi sentire quae velis, et quae sentias dicere licet.
Oh right, gotta DE-platform all those opposing viewpoints
What is the difference between criticizing opposing viewpoints and "de-platforming" opposing viewpoints?
Quote:
Talks about 90's Political correctness, and that 60's leftists became the college professors of the current cohort of college grads, and that the leftist thinking is seeping through to companies via HR departments. Basically a repeat of the message.
I find that Peterson frequently says things very authoritatively when he has no expertise whatsoever about the topic. What does he know about corporate HR departments? Has he done peer-reviewed research on the subject? Has he even spent significant time working in human resources? Or is he talking out of his ass to sell more copies of his book?
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
What is the difference between criticizing opposing viewpoints and "de-platforming" opposing viewpoints?
Discussion versus action?
Quote:
I find that Peterson frequently says things very authoritatively when he has no expertise whatsoever about the topic.
This is a fault of many academics. They have worked hard to become subject matter experts with a very specific focus. Their understanding of their subject matter area is extremely deep, but it is very focused. They don't appreciate the taxonomy of their own knowledge and think they have a more broad expertise, applicable to every subject regardless of experience. Their problem solving skills become linked through to their focused knowledge area and grounded in the theory they are most knowledgeable about without thought for real world outcomes.
My problem with Peterson, and many like him, is they make assumptions based on outliers rather than making generalizations based on representative populations. Peterson sees one extreme faculty member at an institution that supports his very narrow view, then holds that up as a representation of all of academia. What he does in that instance is ignores the hundreds of other faculty members at that institution, and then the thousands across all of academia, who do not share these abhorrent views and are actually counter to these very positions. These extreme views are usually pretty much countered by the vast majority of the college, but because they are so different they stand out.
What makes things worse is these outliers are usually the squeaky wheels on campus who do everything they can to get their obnoxious views heard, taking full advantage of their special assignment time to become a burr under everyone's saddle blankets. Usually, when I come across a pain in the ass faculty member, who is not representative of the general herd, it is almost a certainty that they will end up on faculty senate, voted there out of spite toward the administration or who ran unopposed in their given department because no one wants to deal with the bull#### of the academic senate. Only after they screw up so badly at that level does the faculty finally turn on that individual, ostracize them, then eat one of their own.
Quote:
What does he know about corporate HR departments? Has he done peer-reviewed research on the subject? Has he even spent significant time working in human resources? Or is he talking out of his ass to sell more copies of his book?
This completely supports my point on theory versus application. Theory is very seldom perfectly aligned with application. That is why many institutions are adding application components to their courses, so students do not fall into the traps that so much of the academics have been caught. It is wonderful to listen to the egg heads prattle on about post-modernist constructs and Marxist ideals, but in the real world, none of these theories hold much water. Walk into any HR department and ask a question and you will not get a reading of Heidegger or Marx, you're going to get a review of policy and standards, none of which have a foundation in the previously mentioned theorists.
The real world does not behave in the same way as the academy, and for good reason. Academia is slow to react and process driven. Whether it be shared governance or peer review, academia is designed to provide oversight of almost every single discussion/decision. The real world is affected by people who are not "subject matter experts" like those in academia. The subject matter experts in industry are subject matter experts because their experience in application. They are much more knowledgeable in many ways because they know how stuff really works. A law student may be well schooled in theory, but once you get into that court room where the interpretation of a judge comes into play, well the game changes dramatically. Things in academia are very clean and precise because theory can be taught in the vacuum of the classroom where the variable and chaos of the real world can be controlled or eliminated. Hence, Peterson sounding like he is talking out of his ass, mostly because he is, because he has not real world application to speak of.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
What is the difference between criticizing opposing viewpoints and "de-platforming" opposing viewpoints?
In the one, you allow the opposing viewpoint to be expressed and then you criticize it. In the other, you do everything in your power to prevent the opposing viewpoint from being expressed at all. Seems a pretty clear distinction to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
I find that Peterson frequently says things very authoritatively when he has no expertise whatsoever about the topic. What does he know about corporate HR departments? Has he done peer-reviewed research on the subject? Has he even spent significant time working in human resources? Or is he talking out of his ass to sell more copies of his book?
So what? Sounds like you're saying we shouldn't have public intellectuals at all - everyone should stay in their narrow academic lanes of expertise.
Curious that we don't see this kind of standard applied to David Suzuki for speaking authoritatively outside his narrow expertise in zoology and genetics. The Canadian left doesn't seem to have any problem with Suzuki opining about climate change, or calling the entire field of economics "brain damage." Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics and a revered figure on the left, has made a career out of criticizing American foreign policy. Let's disregard everything he says in Manufacturing Consent because he doesn't have any formal credentials in communications and media. Ta-Nehisi Coates has no academic qualifications of any kind, and yet he's paid well to express his opinion on all sorts of social matters. Where's his history or sociology degree? Same with Naomi Klein - she's a college drop-out who drafted a plan to fundamentally re-structure the economy of Canada, and the CBC gave her a national platform to espouse these plans. Where are her peer-reviewed papers?
The money thing is one of the feebler accusations against Peterson. First, he was saying all this stuff long before anyone besides the university was paying him. Second, where is all this tut-tutting about Canadian intellectuals making money when it comes to David "I own four homes and have a net worth of $25 million" Suzuki? Part of the motivation on the part of Suzuki, Chomsky, Coates, and Klein when they write a book and go on tour to publicize it is to make money. Does that discredit their arguments in your eyes?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 05-06-2018 at 07:41 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
So what? Sounds like you're saying we shouldn't have public intellectuals at all - everyone should stay in their narrow academic lanes of expertise.
Curious that we don't see this kind of standard applied to David Suzuki for speaking authoritatively outside his narrow expertise in zoology and genetics. The Canadian left doesn't seem to have any problem with Suzuki opining about climate change, or calling the entire field of economics "brain damage." Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics and a revered figure on the left, has made a career out of criticizing American foreign policy. Let's disregard everything he says in Manufacturing Consent because he doesn't have any formal credentials in communications and media. Ta-Nehisi Coates has no academic qualifications of any kind, and yet he's paid well to express his opinion on all sorts of social and economic matters. Where's his history of sociology degree? Same with Naomi Klein - she's a college drop-out who has drafted a plan to fundamentally re-structure the economy of Canada. Where are her peer-reviewed papers?
The money thing is one of the feebler accusations against Peterson. First, he was saying all this stuff long before anyone besides the university was paying him. Second, where is all this tut-tutting about Canadian intellectuals making money when it comes to David "I own four homes and have a net worth of $25 million" Suzuki? And you really don't think part of the motivation on the part of Suzuki, Chomsky, Coates, and Klein when they write a book and go on tour to publicize it is to make money?
Literally everyone you just listed is terrible and no one should listen to their opinions about anything, especially Chomsky.
If you'd like to start a thread talking about how terrible each of those pundits are, you should probably start one however.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
I’m stunned reading through this thread how causally labels are thrown around with little to no regard for proof or evidence. The fact you disagree with someone doesn’t automatically make them an “insert label here”. I find it hard to believe some of you are able to function in society with nazis hiding behind every corner and capitalism crushing your souls.
The Following User Says Thank You to RichKlit For This Useful Post:
In the one, you allow the opposing viewpoint to be expressed and then you criticize it. In the other, you do everything in your power to prevent the opposing viewpoint from being expressed at all. Seems a pretty clear distinction to me.
OK, then how was rubecube's post (which was labelled "de-platforming") even remotely a step to prevent Peterson's viewpoint from being expressed?
Quote:
So what? Sounds like you're saying we shouldn't have public intellectuals at all - everyone should stay in their narrow academic lanes of expertise.
Curious that we don't see this kind of standard applied to David Suzuki for speaking authoritatively outside his narrow expertise in zoology and genetics. The Canadian left doesn't seem to have any problem with Suzuki opining about climate change, or calling the entire field of economics "brain damage." Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics and a revered figure on the left, has made a career out of criticizing American foreign policy. Let's disregard everything he says in Manufacturing Consent because he doesn't have any formal credentials in communications and media. Ta-Nehisi Coates has no academic qualifications of any kind, and yet he's paid well to express his opinion on all sorts of social matters. Where's his history or sociology degree? Same with Naomi Klein - she's a college drop-out who drafted a plan to fundamentally re-structure the economy of Canada, and the CBC gave her a national platform to espouse these plans. Where are her peer-reviewed papers?
The money thing is one of the feebler accusations against Peterson. First, he was saying all this stuff long before anyone besides the university was paying him. Second, where is all this tut-tutting about Canadian intellectuals making money when it comes to David "I own four homes and have a net worth of $25 million" Suzuki? Part of the motivation on the part of Suzuki, Chomsky, Coates, and Klein when they write a book and go on tour to publicize it is to make money. Does that discredit their arguments in your eyes?
This isn't the David Suzuki thread. No one started one of those (probably because few people trot him out as a leading thinker in anything these days.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
I find that Peterson frequently says things very authoritatively when he has no expertise whatsoever about the topic. What does he know about corporate HR departments? Has he done peer-reviewed research on the subject? Has he even spent significant time working in human resources? Or is he talking out of his ass to sell more copies of his book?
I do work in HR. I haven't really heard anything that he says about the profession that would run contradictory to my own experiences or knowledge on the subject.
Obviously it does vary by company, but his fears about Diversity and Inclusion, Succession planning by demographics, Implicit bias training, etc are grounded in reality.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CaramonLS For This Useful Post:
This isn't the David Suzuki thread. No one started one of those (probably because few people trot him out as a leading thinker in anything these days.
Didn't U of A just give the guy an honorary degree of some sort? He still gets a lot of play on matters relating to climate change.
Anyway, I'm a lawyer, and I can't comment with any real expertise about what Peterson has to say about HR or genetics or psychology, but his perspective on the law of Canada is simplistic and misleading. I have not, however, heard him say anything inaccurate about the constitutional protections afforded to freedom of expression, as far as I can recall.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Didn't U of A just give the guy an honorary degree of some sort? He still gets a lot of play on matters relating to climate change.
Anyway, I'm a lawyer, and I can't comment with any real expertise about what Peterson has to say about HR or genetics or psychology, but his perspective on the law of Canada is simplistic and misleading. I have not, however, heard him say anything inaccurate about the constitutional protections afforded to freedom of expression, as far as I can recall.
I haven't heard him comment much on law except his co.menys re the likely effect of federal bill C-16 which I would characterize as "hilariously wrong".
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
OK, then how was rubecube's post (which was labelled "de-platforming") even remotely a step to prevent Peterson's viewpoint from being expressed?
I didn't say it was. Just pointing out the difference between criticism and no-platforming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
This isn't the David Suzuki thread. No one started one of those (probably because few people trot him out as a leading thinker in anything these days.
Okay. Personally, I think there is a place for public intellectuals in discussions of social issues, and I have no problems with them speaking outside their realms of expertise. Especially since the expertise of today's academics tends to be extremely narrow, and most are poor communicators.
I'm perfectly happy to have someone like Peterson speaking engagingly about psychology, archetypes, Marxist ideology, history, politics, and evolution, bringing together threads on those subjects in his own idiosyncratic way. It's far better for public debate than a dozen narrowly-focused academics giving jargon-filled lectures on obscure subjects with no effort made to synthesize knowledge and put it into context for laymen. I enjoy my James Burkes, Christopher Hitchens, Camille Paglias, Sam Harris, Dan Carlins, and Steven Pinkers. Without these engaging communicators keen to grapple with a wide range of subjects, we'd see even less public engagement with the world of ideas.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 05-06-2018 at 09:22 AM.
So what? Sounds like you're saying we shouldn't have public intellectuals at all - everyone should stay in their narrow academic lanes of expertise.
It is fine for academics to stray from their swim lanes, if they acknowledge the taxonomy of their expertise and acknowledge their lack of expertise as they move higher in the order. You can develop a broad understanding of subjects so long as you come completely out of your lane and gain understanding from the experiences of living, studying, or working in the other. This is where so many academics fail. I am coaching an individual on how to develop a more broad expertise in dealing with matters at an institution wide perspective, and I always tell this person to take a step back.
When they first hear a problem, they apply their understanding based on their particular lens and expertise. I tell them to take a step back, and look at from another perspective. Work up the layers of the taxonomy to better understand issues from the broader perspective. Apply the experiences and understanding of others from those other lanes and be prepared to look at issues as their environment affects them and their perceptions. Remind yourself that you're in their world and need to understand what affects them based on the rules they have to live by. This is where academics, and those who claim to be intellectuals, tend to fail and fail hard. They know their swim lane exceptionally well, to the point where they believe all swim lanes are the same and behave in the same manner as their own, and this is their downfall. Peterson is no different.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 05-06-2018 at 09:26 AM.
