CNN Opinion: Stop hating on the millenials

[LizzieMaine]

Not at all. It means you've been very lucky. We should all be so lucky.

 

[sheeplady]

No. I'm saying I have a hard time working up sympathy for people who claim they cannot afford food, yet find a way to afford what I consider luxuries. Whether they're "poor" or not.

So, if someone has central heat (but keeps the thermostat real low, for sake of argument), but needs to go to the food pantry because they lost their job and couldn't buy food in the meantime, you would not have sympathy for them? Should they have to let their pipes freeze to buy food? What if they are required to keep the thermostat at a certain temperature by their landlord, or face eviction (I have lived in such apartments, myself, and they actually did evict a person for letting their pipes freeze)? What if their heat is supplied as part of their rent, and not in their control? Should a parent not allow their child to have free school lunches if they have central heating in their apartment complex or heat assistance supplied by a government program?

I am trying to get this straight in my head. It doesn't make any sense to me, because I can see a lot of conditions where a person has a service like central heating but can't afford food.

So then what did you mean by that comment?

Simply that you go to a person who is working class and not able to or afraid of not being able to make ends meet and make the comment.

It's a really really hurtful comment to make to a person. It's insulting, particularly if you know nothing about the other person other than their socio-economic class. It's also pretty mean and petty. It's the equivalent of bragging about your situation in comparison to theirs, and giving total credit to both situations on an attribute you seem to think is totally in their and your control. You and I seem to fundamentally disagree about that point, however.

My policy is I don't say anything about a group of people I wouldn't say to their face. I don't make a policy of going around and hurting strangers or people I know on principle. So my test is that if you wouldn't dare say something to someone's face, in person, don't say it on the internet.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

Not at all. It means you've been very lucky. We should all be so lucky.

Luck and divine right.

 

[HudsonHawk]

So, if someone has central heat (but keeps the thermostat real low, for sake of argument), but needs to go to the food pantry because they lost their job and couldn't buy food in the meantime, you would not have sympathy for them? Should they have to let their pipes freeze to buy food? What if they are required to keep the thermostat at a certain temperature by their landlord, or face eviction (I have lived in such apartments, myself, and they actually did evict a person for letting their pipes freeze)? What if their heat is supplied as part of their rent, and not in their control? Should a parent not allow their child to have free school lunches if they have central heating in their apartment complex or heat assistance supplied by a government program?

I am trying to get this straight in my head. It doesn't make any sense to me, because I can see a lot of conditions where a person has a service like central heating but can't afford food.

If it's any one of those situations, I'll have sympathy for them. If it's any other, I won't. Will that work for you? Geez, how'd we go from "millennials need to re-adjust their expectations" to "what if the landlord makes you choose heat over food"?

Simply that you go to a person who is working class and not able to or afraid of not being able to make ends meet and make the comment.

Alright then.

 

[splintercellsz]

No. I'm saying I have a hard time working up sympathy for people who claim they cannot afford food, yet find a way to afford what I consider luxuries. Whether they're "poor" or not.

I am not sure what you consider luxuries, but we vitrually have no money after rent. We go to places for free food handouts. We have a roof over out head, and that is enough luxury to last both mine and my grandmothers lifetime. If you know nothing about the person you are speaking of, then why say anything about them at all? Try putting yourself in their shoes before you make a judgement of them. Some people may look like the richest being in the world, when in reality, it is a front to hide their struggles in life.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I am not sure what you consider luxuries, but we vitrually have no money after rent. We go to places for free food handouts. We have a roof over out head, and that is enough luxury to last both mine and my grandmothers lifetime. If you know nothing about the person you are speaking of, then why say anything about them at all? Try putting yourself in their shoes before you make a judgement of them. Some people may look like the richest being in the world, when in reality, it is a front to hide their struggles in life.

I don't have to know anyone at all to know what I personally consider a luxury. I consider having an internet connection a luxury. I understand that not everyone does.

 

[Guttersnipe]

A little factoid to think about: there are more than 2.5 million Iraq and Afghanistan veterans in the United States; substantially all of them are from the millennial generation (born between 1980 and 2000).

Another little factoid to think about: according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, trailing twelve-month U.S. unemployment rates show a ~20% higher statistical instance of unemployment amount individuals 18 - 34 (i.e., millennial generation).

A third little factoid: the cost of education in the U.S. has outpaced inflation on an order of magnitude . . .

A fourth factoid: the popular sentiment is that the millennial generation is self-involved and apathetic, yet voter turnout for individuals between 18 and 34 in U.S. elections has been on the rise overall . . .

. . . yep, millennials have so easy. The fight wars, face a tough job market, pay a unprecedented premium to better themselves through education, and don't give a damn about anything but themselves.

 

[HudsonHawk]

A fourth factoid: the popular sentiment is that the millennial generation is self-involved and apathetic, yet voter turnout for individuals between 18 and 34 in U.S. elections has been on the rise overall . . .

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say millennials are apathetic. Quite the opposite.

 

[sheeplady]

Sounds like the early 1900s all over again.

No, under your definition, I am not working poor. Is that bad?

The issue is that you could become poor at any moment in this country. All it takes is one slip, one aspect of fate. For people who are already working poor, they are simply one crisis from becoming totally indigent.

Take for example, a medical crisis. You can get 4 months of unpaid leave in the U.S. for treatment and keep your health insurance. However, some illnesses require more time than that. That time can be unpaid, or paid on disability (a fraction of what you make). Your employer has to approve your time. If you lose your job (due to being sick more than 4 months, due to your employer not approving your leave), you lose your healthcare benefits if you had them. (If you're too sick to work, and you must be out your entire treatment, you will likely lose your jobs unless your employer personally likes you and can afford to keep your spot.)

Your treatment costs $200,000. (Not hard to add up to. There's a single shot commonly given during chemotherapy that costs $4,500. And you need to get that every week you get a treatment- sometimes 8 or 12 times. The entire weekly treatment might cost $14,000.) Suddenly without health insurance you'll have to declare bankruptency because you can't cover your medical bills. With that on your record, it's hard to find a lot of jobs when they check your credit. Most working class people don't have health insurance to begin with.

Although there is medicaid, you need to qualify for it. That means you have to spend what you have down first. Plenty of people who are working class have just a little bit too much to qualify for medicaid, but too little to buy their own insurance (which is not provided for them). They too have to lose what they have in order to qualify. So the fear of an illness without healthcare is frightening. And medicaid doesn't pay for everything and it often has long approval times- which can make the difference between life and death. It's bad enough fighting with the insurance company you paid into all those years when you were healthy because at least you can say "you took my money!," but it's even worse to deal with an organization that's public welfare for the poor and riddled with bureaucracy.

 

[HudsonHawk]

The issue is that you could become poor at any moment in this country. All it takes is one slip, one aspect of fate. For people who are already working poor, they are simply one crisis from becoming totally indigent.

Getting this back to the original topic..all of these things you mention are true. So are they not examples of exactly why millennials *should* be re-evaluating their expectations of how the world works?

 

[SHOWSOMECLASS]

Being jobless today has a different result than it did in the 1930's depression era. My grandfather always said, "he and his two bros. were orphaned w/ parents". His parents took them to the orphanage in Milwaukee and said we will be back to get you when we can find jobs. So they spent their adolescent and early teen years as wards of the state. Different Dairy farmers would take them in temporarily and they work for their room and board (free) during these seasonal periods. When the work was done back they would go to the orphanage. Some were kind and treated them as family while others as indentured servants. This went on for years. That was depression era public assistance which is a far cry from the modern definition.

 

[sheeplady]

Getting this back to the original topic..all of these things you mention are true. So are they not examples of exactly why millennials *should* be re-evaluating their expectations of how the world works?

I don't think anyone should be re-evaluating their expectations. I think we ought to demand that our expectations (particularly in regards to healthcare) be met. It is a totally reasonable expectation that people in a society take care of one another, particularly in times of illness. We're all probably going to get our turn, unless a person just drops dead after a life of full health. I think we ought to be storming Washington, the insurance companies, and the whole healthcare-industrial complex.

But I also admit to being much more socialistic than a lot of people in the U.S. My attitude would not be considered odd in many countries, but it is considered odd in the U.S. by many.

ETA: I also think basic healthcare is a human right and shouldn't be a "for-profit" business; which is why I feel so strongly in my stance. But that is personal opinion.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I don't think anyone should be re-evaluating their expectations. I think we ought to demand that our expectations (particularly in regards to healthcare) be met.

Wow. Ok. I'm going to bed. To all a good night.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say millennials are apathetic. Quite the opposite.

Then you haven't been paying attention; it's one of the most common criticisms of my generations. Boomers who came of age in the late 1960s love to lecture millennials about how they had the anti-war movement, change everything, etc. and accuse millennials of not caring about anything and doing nothing. In fact, it's practically a cliche . . .

 

[sheeplady]

. . . yep, millennials have so easy. The fight wars, face a tough job market, pay a unprecedented premium to better themselves through education, and don't give a damn about anything but themselves.

It's always amused me that the harshest critics of the millennials tend to be members of the boomers. All the supposed bad traits of the boomers are the same ones they hate in the millennial. Self-centeredness being the primary stereotypical trait of the boomer generation- the original "me generation."

There is another generation that came between, and we're called generation X. But we'd rather the critics leave us alone, your attentions don't seem very nice. We've got our own bad stereotypical traits to deal with and like all generations they are pretty nasty sounding. So we're kind of glad you forgot about us. Carry on.

 

[Touchofevil]

I don't think anyone should be re-evaluating their expectations. I think we ought to demand that our expectations (particularly in regards to healthcare) be met. It is a totally reasonable expectation that people in a society take care of one another, particularly in times of illness. We're all probably going to get our turn, unless a person just drops dead after a life of full health. I think we ought to be storming Washington, the insurance companies, and the whole healthcare-industrial complex.

But I also admit to being much more socialistic than a lot of people in the U.S. My attitude would not be considered odd in many countries, but it is considered odd in the U.S. by many.

ETA: I also think basic healthcare is a human right and shouldn't be a "for-profit" business; which is why I feel so strongly in my stance. But that is personal opinion.

My insurance has increased from $383.00 to $683.00 to $900.00 a month during the past three years. Meanwhile my co-pay has doubled, prescription prices have increased, more hoops to jump through for what was once a basic service, and there always seems to be a bill for every check up. I get much less for paying a lot more. Benefits? They do not exist anymore. I work an after hours program to make up for lost money and to help pay for the medical bills of my Lady's daughter, and they cut that pay by 1/3. I make approximately $1300.00 per month less this year than last year. I am at work 60 hours a week not counting time spent after hours at home. I get $57.00 out of every $100.00 I make to pay the bills and then try to save for the impending rainy day. Life is tough, but could be so much worse that I feel fortunate.

 

[R.G. White]

I strongly recommend a book from the 1980s called "Class" by Paul Fussell, which although rather dated is still the best book on social class in America ever written. Extremely illuminating, although heavily biased by Fussell's own upper-middle-class upbringing, and also very funny. Once you've read this book you'll be able to peg the social class of any random person you see on the street up to about 90 percent accuracy.

I'll definitely check it out!

 

[vintageTink]

Exactly... this is what I'm getting at. $14 an hour in 1991 was enough... you'd expect that to be double now, or at least over $20. It was over 20 years ago. It's sickening to know we've not even maintained, but backslid. You can argue if it's better to be a kid who's born into a working class family now and is always going to face poverty, or if it's better to have once been able to afford things and then slid into poverty. Either way, the person is poor. For no reason other than a lack of opportunity.

Tacoma is near Seattle, right? I couldn't live in Seattle for love nor money- it's hideously expensive (my in-laws live there). Well, ok, I couldn't live there because of the inlaws, but I generally don't like the mainstream culture (kind of snobby, what I have experienced on various trips) or the costs. If you want to move to upstate NY, it's cheap here to live. Anyplace north or west of Albany, with some areas excepted. $15 an hour can buy a small house in the better part of the city, $20 an hour (single income) could buy you a small house in the suburbs.

ETA: But the problem, again, is lack of $20 an hour jobs. Our largest employer is the university (3,000 employees) and the second is the hospitals. This is in a city which once had GE, Carrier, Syracuse China, several auto part makers, etc. GE once had 10,000 employees here, Carrier had *more*.

45 mind south of. We moved here to help out husband's family when his father deployed. They pcs'd and we've been stuck here since.

 

[sheeplady]

My insurance has increased from $383.00 to $683.00 to $900.00 a month during the past three years. Meanwhile my co-pay has doubled, prescription prices have increased, more hoops to jump through for what was once a basic service, and there always seems to be a bill for every check up. I get much less for paying a lot more. Benefits? They do not exist anymore. I work an after hours program to make up for lost money and to help pay for the medical bills of my Lady's daughter, and they cut that pay by 1/3. I make approximately $1300.00 per month less this year than last year. I am at work 60 hours a week not counting time spent after hours at home. I get $57.00 out of every $100.00 I make to pay the bills and then try to save for the impending rainy day. Life is tough, but could be so much worse that I feel fortunate.

Yeah... needless to say that I always have said that I would gladly pay more of my paycheck if it meant that no one died from lack of care due to lack of funds. Because honestly, knowing that my family would never be crippled would be a huge peace of mind. That's the kind of lottery you don't want to win. Honestly, take more of my money but let my family not need to use insurance. But if they did, please cover everything.

Having won the lottery of a serious illness at a young age, I can tell you that my "good" insurance doesn't pay for crap. And I've hit all my deductibles. Your savings go fast when you pay 10% of your costs, you have all these separate deductibles, and you're being charged $14,000 every couple of weeks for half a year by your doctor's to your insurance. Even the (relatively cheap for "good" insurance) $20 copays twice a week add up. If not for private charity, I wouldn't be getting some of my basic healthcare needs met. I had a "medically necessary" sleeve and glove custom created for me. It won't save my life, but it will allow me to go back to work, have a good quality of life, and prevent massively expensive health problems in the future that insurance *will* need to pay for. My "good" insurance paid for $12. They cost $1,700. (You read that right.) Thank god the physical therapist got me a grant from a private charity. (I was in tears, I was so thankful.) She told me to bring the check for whatever the insurance paid in to reimburse the grant.

My insurance paid for 0.7% of my sleeve. Less than 1%. Why did they even bother?

I'm freaking embarrassed to take in a $12 check to give back to the charity. It makes me ashamed that I worked for so many years and my husband has worked for so many years, paid for so much on insurance (the best and most expensive plan offered), and I *have to rely on charity to pay for my sleeve.* I called the insurance company and asked them if they left a zero or two off, I was so embarrassed. I don't know how I'm going to hand over that check without a red face. They are also going to help me with an hour of childcare everyday when I need radiation because I can't take my baby with me, and I can't work because of treatment. All I can do is spread the word about the charity and when I get back on my feet give back what I can.

And I have insurance. I'm lucky to be insured. I'm not even considered "under-insured." And they paid $12.

 

[sheeplady]

45 mind south of. We moved here to help out husband's family when his father deployed. They pcs'd and we've been stuck here since.

That sucks. I'm sorry. Your in-laws should have helped you get out. I was considering moving my family across country for a potential job opportunity, but I thought it might end up in a situation similar to yours... I don't like to live anyplace where it's really expensive and the culture isn't a good fit. I'd rather stay in the sucky economy, the devil you know kind of thing.

But if I am ever out to visit my in-laws I will come and visit and we can meet at your favorite place that serves tea (I don't drink coffee)! And you are welcome to come visit here if you are ever this way! Not much of a consolation prize, but it's something.