# What happened to Growing Up?



## sabrinathecat (Dec 21, 2013)

I've run into this a time or two before, but noticed it again last night when watching October Sky (which was a great movie by the way).
Used to be that by the time people graduated High School, they were adults. They were ready to go out and earn a living.
Now, people seem to wait until 25 or 30 or even 35 before growing up.
How did this happen?
When, exactly, did this happen?
How do we fix it?
It is one thing to be in touch with your inner child, but another to still be one.
And it isn't just the expectations have changed because most jobs require college. It seems as though we don't instill the pride and sense of becoming independent.
One friend of mine has a theory that it is part of the plan to dumb down the masses because uninformed people are easier to control, and goes on a bit.
I'm not necessarily talking about education, but overall maturity.


----------



## Joker (Dec 22, 2013)

Is this based on anything other than your limited personal experience?  Sociological studies and such?

Otherwise I'll just say that the advent of the internet has made immature actions from some people more visible and that might be coloring your perceptions.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 22, 2013)

I think you are conflating being an adult and earning a living. 

Not sure why it needs to be "fixed". Seems like idealizing the a past that had its own problems. Jews use to consider adulthood at 13.Times change. 

Jobs are harder to find, houses cost a lot, you leave school with tones of debt, the new generation will have the burden of paying for the Baby Boomers for quite while... So people postpone the time they leave the house, it is logical. In that way the new world is cathing up to Europe. 

In Italy kids stay with their parents for a very long time and inherite the family house. In China you live with your parents and you're supposed take care of them until they die. 

Why do you think casting people out of the house is a good thing in the first place? Wouldn't it be more beneficial if parents and kids pooled their resources?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 22, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> I've run into this a time or two before, but noticed it again last night when watching October Sky (which was a great movie by the way).
> Used to be that by the time people graduated High School, they were adults. They were ready to go out and earn a living.
> Now, people seem to wait until 25 or 30 or even 35 before growing up.
> How did this happen?
> ...



How exactly do you believe an adult is supposed to behave?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 22, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> And it isn't just the expectations have changed because most jobs require college.




Actually, I think you underestimate that effect.  It is difficult to go out and earn a living when there are no living-wage jobs that will hire you.

Requiring college doesn't help.  But it is worse than that.  Remember that we had a major recession back after in 2001, and another in 2007.  It has been a long while since it was easy for a new person in the workforce to get a decent job.



> It seems as though we don't instill the pride and sense of becoming independent.




A sense won't cut hte mustard if there's no paycheck.



> One friend of mine has a theory that it is part of the plan to dumb down the masses because uninformed people are easier to control, and goes on a bit.




"The plan"?  Really?  "The plan"?  

The irony of complaining about kids today not stepping up and acting like mature, intelligent adults, and explaining it with a conspiracy theory, is pretty rich.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 22, 2013)

It's a good thing. It means you have a rich and prosperous society.

If you want to "fix" it (it doesn't need fixing, but assuming you do), then find a way to plunge your country into poverty. You can go back to ploughing the fields from the age of 8 from dawn until sundown until you die. It'll be  awesome! 

Otherwise - increasing ability to spend more and more amounts of time on luxury pursuits is evidence that one's society is most definitely progressing beyond the Stone Age.

People don't go our and break their backs as soon as possible any more because they don't have to. Nobody did it out of fun, y'know.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 22, 2013)

Morrus said:


> People don't go our and break their backs as soon as possible any more because they don't have to. Nobody did it out of fun, y'know.



My grandfather would disagree. He use to walk barefoot in broken glass so he could play soccer with his friends when he was a kid. They used a brick for a ball. Those were better days, he keeps saying.


----------



## PigKnight (Dec 22, 2013)

goldomark said:


> I think you are conflating being an adult and earning a living.
> 
> Not sure why it needs to be "fixed". Seems like idealizing the a past that had its own problems. Jews use to consider adulthood at 13.Times change.
> 
> ...



I can't believe it, I agree with Goldo.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 22, 2013)

OK, folks: Apples, Oranges.

I am not talking about how crappy our economy is.
I am not talking about the lack of jobs.
These are both very serious problems.

(and I'm not saying I subscribe to my friend's conspiracy theory either)

I am talking about basic maturity and attitude.
I do not get the sense that the kids getting out of high school are ready to be adults.
Hell, I didn't get that sense back when _I_ was graduating from high school.

This is not about enjoying leisure time.
I am talking about being mentally ready to take on and be a part of society.
It seems to me that the early 20s are more of a prolonged childhood and adolescence.

That, to me, is a problem.

How do I think adults should behave?
Willing to take _*responsibility *_for their actions and in-actions (wouldn't that be something). No just "oh, my bad," but "This is my fault, and I will do whatever it takes to fix it."
Having pride of self worth not because some self-esteem instructor told them to, but by earning it through some form of accomplishment.
Ready to go into either a college or the workforce and earn a living. (Crappy economy notwithstanding, not talking about the lack of jobs, but how many are even ready to take on a job? How many teenagers do you know that you would be willing to turn over your business and costumers to for an hour, unsupervised?)


----------



## PigKnight (Dec 22, 2013)

Where are you getting these ideas from? The internet? Social interaction? The media? Personal theories? You seem to be grouping every 20ish year old together into one generalized group and labeling them all as uniformly immature. _Maybe_, they aren't all mature but _maybe_ you only notice the immature ones because they are more vocal than the mature ones. Furthermore, maybe nothing has changed over the years and those that are immature can just more easily show how they are immature compared to immature 20ish year olds of past generations (likely due to social media and the internet letting everyone know what everyone is doing).


----------



## Psikosis (Dec 22, 2013)

*Developmental insights*

From a neurodevelopmental perspective, the human brain is done developing by age 25. The brain remains plastic to varying degrees throughout the lifespan, depending on various genetic and epigenetic factors unique to the individual. But by 25, a person has a full set of cognitive and emotional skills and abilities common to all persons. There are, of course, exceptions because of genetic problems such as trisomy-21 (Down's Syndrome), substance abuse, and mental illness, among other problems. Adult-like behavior may be present in younger persons who are compelled by culture, hardship, or other circumstance to adopt adult roles, but even these individuals lack the the more nuanced cognitive and emotional abilities that are completed in late adolescence.

That said, hardships such as poverty, may help spur changes in the typical developmental trajectory. For example, it may increase the likelihood of a person developing a significantly altered ability to appraise risk and benefits. This change occurs at the biological level within the brain. That is, it is not something that can be unlearned with a few sessions of psychotherapy or skills training. The result of this change is an increase in impulsive, risk-taking behavior that is similar to what one might expect from a 13 to 16 year-old so the person may appear less mature well into his or her adult years. But it's not a lack of maturity, it's simply that the individual understands the world in a different way.

In sum, there are multiple reasons why it seems people mature more slowly now than in the past. Some are good. As others have noted, we don't demand adult roles of children, for example. Others reflect the consequences of social problems such as poverty and mental illness.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 22, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> I do not get the sense that the kids getting out of high school are ready to be adults.




Two questions, then:

1) Where do you get your sense?  Do you actually have contact with a statistically relevant number of high-school graduates, or somehting?

2) Where did you get the sense that kids of yesteryear were actually any different than kids of today?  

It would be really awesome if you named a time period you're comparing today to, by the way.  We could then start pulling out statistics that shine some light on the question. 



> How do I think adults should behave?
> Willing to take _*responsibility *_for their actions and in-actions (wouldn't that be something). No just "oh, my bad," but "This is my fault, and I will do whatever it takes to fix it."




There's some Golden Age where people in general took responsibility?  When was that?

You know how Truman made a big deal out of "the buck stops here"?  His word choice means that "passing the buck" was a well-known turn of phrase before Truman.  So, the Golden Age must be solidly before his time in office...

For example, say the 1950s.  You know how many men were, by today's standards, alcoholic wife-abusers in those days?  These paragons of being part of society slapping their wives and kids around.  Great stuff!

The 1960s... with experimental drug use, commmunes, Woodstock, and the summer of love?

The 1970s?  Yes, the world was filled with folks who were up to taking responsibility for their actions.  That's why Karen Silkwood died!

The 1980s?  Oh, yeah. Cocaine and "greed is good".  Mature folks taking responsible actions by the hordes there...

Go ahead, pick your time period, and we'll talk about how ready folks were to really be functional parts of society.

I don't know about you, in particular, but humans commonly wear rose colored glasses when looking at the past - somehow things were always better back then, glossing over the problems of the age.  You don't get to compare the bad things of today with the good things of yesterday, and call them equivalent.



> Having pride of self worth not because some self-esteem instructor told them to, but by earning it through some form of accomplishment.




What accomplishments are you apt to make if you can't get a job to support yourself?  The esteem you want them to have has prerequisites that often aren't available now at an early age.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 22, 2013)

1: I challenge you to find anyone with "Statistically relevant" access to high-school graduates. That would have to number in hundreds of thousands if not in the millions. I'd bet not even the superintendent of the largest school district in the country has that many students under him/her, and certainly not direct, personal access to them.

2: as you say, define yesteryear. How about this: take any period. But since you like specifics, let's take 1945-1965.



Umbran said:


> For example, say the 1950s.  You know how many men were, by today's standards, alcoholic wife-abusers in those days?  These paragons of being part of society slapping their wives and kids around.  Great stuff!



Apples, oranges



Umbran said:


> The 1960s... with experimental drug use, commmunes, Woodstock, and the summer of love?



Which hasn't stopped.


Umbran said:


> The 1970s?  Yes, the world was filled with folks who were up to taking responsibility for their actions.  That's why Karen Silkwood died!



Who?



Umbran said:


> The 1980s?  Oh, yeah. Cocaine and "greed is good".  Mature folks taking responsible actions by the hordes there...



So, that would be part of the problem. Since you started with Truman, clearly this is not the era to be looking at.



Umbran said:


> I don't know about you, in particular, but humans commonly wear rose colored glasses when looking at the past - somehow things were always better back then, glossing over the problems of the age.  You don't get to compare the bad things of today with the good things of yesterday, and call them equivalent.



Yes, people do. People also rose to meet challenges.
And again: apples, oranges



Umbran said:


> What accomplishments are you apt to make if you can't get a job to support yourself?  The esteem you want them to have has prerequisites that often aren't available now at an early age.




What accomplishments? Boy/Girl Scouts. Martial arts. Art and Science. Learning. Being ready to be a grown up.
Again, I am _NOT talking about Getting a Job_. I am _not talking about having a job_. I am talking about being *Mature *enough and *Responsible* enough to _handle _having a job. And based on the people interviewing at the restaurant last time I was there, the majority aren't.

People in my mother's generation were babysitting infants when 12 years old. The eldest children sometimes had to give up their chance at an education to earn money to support the family so that the younger would have a chance. These were not good things, but they were what was expected, and what was done.
Can you see that happening today?

You want a couple of modern examples? How about the 14 year old in Texas who just got off with murdering (that's MURDER) four people, because he has "affluency syndrome." Yeah, his family was so rich that they never had to teach him right or wrong, so he gets to escape punishment for MURDERING Four People. Oh, he's been sentenced to a $500k special camp for sensitivity training for the next couple of years. Now, please tell me how that is possible: that someone doesn't know that it is wrong to kill people. (I'd love to be the judge during the wrongful death lawsuit against the parents.)

Less dramatic: last month, someone drove by, was too close to the side of the lane, and tore the side mirror off my car. Did they stop? Yes. Did they leave a note? No. After stopping, they peeled rubber and raced away. Is that the action of an adult? No, that is the action of a child. I do not care if the driver was 17 or 70. I found out from my neighbor that this has happened several times in the last few years. His guess was once per year (but that is not, as you are so fond of, statistically relevant.


----------



## Jet Shield (Dec 22, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> What accomplishments? Boy/Girl Scouts. Martial arts. Art and Science. Learning. Being ready to be a grown up.
> Again, I am _NOT talking about Getting a Job_. I am _not talking about having a job_. I am talking about being *Mature *enough and *Responsible* enough to _handle _having a job. And based on the people interviewing at the restaurant last time I was there, the majority aren't.



I, personally, know dozens of youngsters that not only are mature and responsible enough to have a job, but that actually do work. Some hold part time jobs they work at after school. Others do odd jobs where they can. Several volunteer at various non-profits around the area. A couple work, go to school, _and_ do volunteer work, particularly around this time of year.



sabrinathecat said:


> People in my mother's generation were babysitting infants when 12 years old. The eldest children sometimes had to give up their chance at an education to earn money to support the family so that the younger would have a chance. These were not good things, but they were what was expected, and what was done.
> Can you see that happening today?



I see it happening frequently today. I would guess that you don't hear about it because they're not out causing trouble, so they aren't news-worthy.



sabrinathecat said:


> You want a couple of modern examples? How about the 14 year old in Texas who just got off with murdering (that's MURDER) four people, because he has "affluency syndrome." Yeah, his family was so rich that they never had to teach him right or wrong, so he gets to escape punishment for MURDERING Four People. Oh, he's been sentenced to a $500k special camp for sensitivity training for the next couple of years. Now, please tell me how that is possible: that someone doesn't know that it is wrong to kill people. (I'd love to be the judge during the wrongful death lawsuit against the parents.)
> 
> Less dramatic: last month, someone drove by, was too close to the side of the lane, and tore the side mirror off my car. Did they stop? Yes. Did they leave a note? No. After stopping, they peeled rubber and raced away. Is that the action of an adult? No, that is the action of a child. I do not care if the driver was 17 or 70. I found out from my neighbor that this has happened several times in the last few years. His guess was once per year (but that is not, as you are so fond of, statistically relevant.



You cite two anomalies as examples, and only one of them involves a child. How about citing some source that studies the _average_ teenager of today?


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 22, 2013)

PigKnight said:


> I can't believe it, I agree with Goldo.



It can happen twice a year. After that it means you are turning into a Québecois.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 22, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> 1: I challenge you to find anyone with "Statistically relevant" access to high-school graduates. That would have to number in hundreds of thousands if not in the millions. I'd bet not even the superintendent of the largest school district in the country has that many students under him/her, and certainly not direct, personal access to them.



Out of curiosity, are you saying that a poll that questioned 1,000 people is not statistically relevant?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 22, 2013)

Personally, I am Peter Pan, so I am a bad example.

However, I have noted that at the local- and fairly affluent- public HS, the number of juniors & seniors who don't have a car or other form or transportation of their own is higher than I have ever seen.  I had to drive my cousin to/from school many a time, and the "parent circle" was jam-packed, 2 lanes wide.

Even post-graduation, neither my cousin nor most of his friends have vehicles.  And where we live, there is no public transpiration, so they're still dependent on friends and relatives to get around.

Of those I know, most who are not full-time students are working part-time, relatively low-wage jobs.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 22, 2013)

Yeah, I site two random examples. You site a few random examples.
Life is a statistical anomaly.

Bluntly, I envy you knowing more that two or three responsible young people.
You are well outside my experience with that ratio.


----------



## delericho (Dec 22, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> OK, folks: Apples, Oranges.
> 
> I am not talking about how crappy our economy is.
> I am not talking about the lack of jobs.
> ...




They're connected, though.

A very large portion of our youth _cannot_ move out of home and become independent earlier than they do - so many more jobs require degrees or other advanced training, so many of those jobs just don't pay enough or are really not stable, housing has become hugely expensive, and the kids are saddled with huge debts (for that extra schooling, and also because debt has become an epidemic in our society in general).

So, they stay with their parents.

But here's the thing: if you don't _have_ to learn responsibility (because you've got bills to pay, because you need to ensure there's food on the table, because you need clean clothes to wear), then there's very little incentive to do so - dealing with those things _sucks_.


----------



## Janx (Dec 22, 2013)

I don't disagree with Sabrina's original statement.

it does SEEM as if young adults (18+) are less mature/ready to take on the world.

But I accept that's just a perception.  For me, it's based on watching my younger friends flail about, trying to make their way in the world.

Shows like Jersey Shore (that I've never seen) reinforce that sense that young adults really got no sense of getting to it.


And the economy is likely part of the problem, if there are a larger # of unready young adults.

In spain, young adults are unemployed in larger numbers than in the past, and they are stuck.

Here in America, jobs are also scarce (though probably more available in spain).

The number of young people living at home, or worse having to move back in because of job loss is generally acknowledged as being higher (I hear articles about the economy and this point on NPR all the time).

So let's tie these 2 factors together.

How would you feel (and thus behave), as a young adult if you were stuck at home still (or had to move back)?

How would you percieve the greater number of young adults who are still living at home?

I'm inclined to think many of them wouldn't feel like they grew up. And with nothing to do (sending out resumes is not a full time job), goofing off is probably the next thing on the list.

I'm inclined to think that most of us aren't able to mentally connect the dots that people who don't have jobs are in the situation because the economy sucks right now.  Hence, why lots of people will blame the victim and assume they are lazy or something is wrong with them.

I have no doubt, some of them are lazy (perhaps wooed by the apparent charmed life of their ambititious but equally stuck peers).  But there's probably more people who are just plain stuck right now, and perhaps their lifestyle is making us think they are more aimless than they really are.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 22, 2013)

> How would you percieve the greater number of young adults who are still living at home?




By looking at the census data and other information sources:

https://www.google.com/search?q=per...at+home&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

According to Pew, it's the highest percentage in 40 years.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 23, 2013)

Janx said:


> The number of young people living at home, or worse having to move back in because of job loss is generally acknowledged as being higher (I hear articles about the economy and this point on NPR all the time).



This is me. I'm 30 and living back with parents because I've been unemployed for a year and a half. 



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> But here's the thing: if you don't _have_ to learn responsibility  (because you've got bills to pay, because you need to ensure there's  food on the table, because you need clean clothes to wear), then there's  very little incentive to do so - dealing with those things _sucks_.




This. Look, take any kid at any age and you shove the responsibility of their survival (food, work, shelter) on them, they "mature" in the sense that they have to take responsibility. You can have 14 year olds who are raising their younger siblings because they have a single parent who works all the time. You can have a 10 year who's homeless and thus has to survive on their own. They mature because they have no choice. If you need something, and there is no one there to provide it, then you are forced to do it yourself or do without.

Kids were expected to _work_ on the farm as soon as they were able to use tools. Up til the 1700s, 14-16 was marrying age, and as soon as you were married you were expected to provide for your family. 

This doesn't mean that people _aren't_ doing this now. A 16 year old who gets pregnant and plans to keep the kid grows up real fast because they have to take care of it. Some high school kids still get married, start families, and try to provide. 18 year olds join the military, but it's far fewer.

It's just that it's _harder_ now. In the specified 1940s-60s era, you could go into a factory and work for 40 years. People married in highs chool or right after and immediately started having kids. Now, the longest you may work a job is 10 years. There are fewer jobs for kids that age. 70% of Fast Food workers are over 20, and the Median age of a fast food worker is 28. 
WhSoruce. And if you can't afford to move out, then you're definitely not going to get married and have kids while you're still living with mom and dad. 

Why would you choose to move out or start

It reminds me of this anecdote:


> On a panel on philosophy and SF, one of my fellow panelists decried  the predilection among younger readers for dystopias and “darkness,”  then talked about how when he was a young man, he had no trouble finding  a job, buying a house, living a life, etc.
> 
> 
> “How old are you?” I asked, from the other end of the stage.
> ...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 24, 2013)

> And if you can't afford to move out, then you're definitely not going to get married and have kids while you're still living with mom and dad.




Well, lets be honest here: there has never been a point in human history where the affordability of becoming a parent has been a deciding factor in whether someone becomes a parent for anything resembling a significant part of society.


----------



## delericho (Dec 24, 2013)

Rechan said:


> There are fewer jobs for kids that age. 70% of Fast Food workers are over 20, and the Median age of a fast food worker is 28.




That's quite shocking, really.

Here's another worrying thought: there is almost _nothing_ that happens in a fast food restaurant that requires an actual person doing the work. Virtually all of it can be automated - the only reason they don't is cost.

But every year the cost of automating goes down while the cost of staffing goes up. It's only a matter of time before those two lines cross, and then things are going to get a whole lot worse for a whole lot of people.


----------



## Janx (Dec 24, 2013)

delericho said:


> That's quite shocking, really.
> 
> Here's another worrying thought: there is almost _nothing_ that happens in a fast food restaurant that requires an actual person doing the work. Virtually all of it can be automated - the only reason they don't is cost.
> 
> But every year the cost of automating goes down while the cost of staffing goes up. It's only a matter of time before those two lines cross, and then things are going to get a whole lot worse for a whole lot of people.




One of the things that bugs me about the fast food worker stats is I've heard economists refer to it as a "starter job".  Implying a new worker (i.e. a teenager) gets the job, learns some responsibility, then moves on to a higher paying job.

That's nice in theory, or in a well running economy with upward mobility slots for everybody.

It just doesn't seem like it's actually happening that way when "older" people are sitting in fast food jobs just to get by.

I don't think these people are retards who can't get a better job (even though I know there are better jobs out there in some places).  The situation is more complicated than that.

So I guess, we gotta wonder, what do we do when the robots are able to take these (and more) jobs?

At some point, we're going to have more people who need jobs than actual jobs to perform, regardless of any belief that there are jobs out there.  At some point, there could be 1,000 jobs total as robot overseers.  Everybody else is unemployed.

Are we prepared for a mindshift that being unemployed is OK?


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 24, 2013)

Maybe it is not about it being ok or not, but about having the priviledge of having a job. There is a MIT paper that says that predicts that 45% of remaining jobs could disappear in the next 20 years.

The real paradigme shift would be accepting legislation that limits automation.


----------



## delericho (Dec 24, 2013)

goldomark said:


> The real paradigme shift would be accepting legislation that limits automation.




I really can't see that happening. There's just too much money to be made.



Janx said:


> At some point, we're going to have more people who need jobs than actual jobs to perform, regardless of any belief that there are jobs out there.




In a lot of cases, we're already at that point. In the UK there are about a million people seeking work, and about 80k vacancies advertised.

But it's worse even than that, because not every person is fitted for every job, and it is the unskilled and semi-skilled who see their jobs disappear first - either because the work can be outsourced to where the labour is cheaper, or because it can be automated.

I really don't know the answer. And, in truth, even if I did we're already pretty deep into politics, so it's really a discussion for another place...


----------



## Janx (Dec 24, 2013)

delericho said:


> I really can't see that happening. There's just too much money to be made.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The yellow flag has been raised.  It's cool.  No politics.  I am glad we have been able to briefly discuss what has been done without getting bad.

Moving back to the specific subject, one pattern I've seen among my younger friends is a failure to launch.

It's taking them longer to graduate (if at all).  I knew what I wanted to do when I was 10 years old.  i spent 4.5 years in college because that's how long it took to get all the courses in my degree.  I got a job straight out of college at a major tech company.

Some of that's luck, but some of it is drive.  I don't see that the young people I know have the same drive to pick a path and get it done (and then struggle to get a job).  Instead, they're struggling to finish school.


----------



## delericho (Dec 24, 2013)

Janx said:


> Moving back to the specific subject, one pattern I've seen among my younger friends is a failure to launch.
> 
> It's taking them longer to graduate (if at all).  I knew what I wanted to do when I was 10 years old.  i spent 4.5 years in college because that's how long it took to get all the courses in my degree.  I got a job straight out of college at a major tech company.




"Failure to launch" is a good term.

I was also lucky - on entry to university I had to pick three subjects, two of which were picked for me and the third I took because it sounded interesting. Pretty much on day one, I realised that that third subject was what I wanted to do, and I've been doing it (in some form) ever since.

Looking back, though, one thing that strikes me is how woeful was my 17-y-old self's grasp of the range of jobs that were out there, and the paths that I would need to take to get there. There are loads of things I could have done... but most of those doors were closed before I even knew they existed.

And as time goes on, jobs become ever-more specialised. In Scotland, we make our first pick of subjects at 13ish. Pick the wrong subjects then, and your choices at 15ish are limited. Those in turn limit your choice of degree. And with so many jobs requiring a degree (and not just any degree, but something 'relevant') the wrong pick can _really_ set you back. In all cases it's _possible_ to retrain or change direction... but it's a whole bunch of extra time, when you may need to be making money on which to live.

And the situation is bad enough in Scotland, where we still have state-funded university education (for 5 years, IIRC). In England, or the US, where students have to fund their own education through debt, the cost of those "wrong paths" is pretty frightening.

On that one, at least, I think there is at least a partial solution available: it's surely not beyond the wit of men to provide better careers advice to young folk.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 24, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Maybe it is not about it being ok or not, but about having the priviledge of having a job. There is a MIT paper that says that predicts that 45% of remaining jobs could disappear in the next 20 years.
> 
> The real paradigme shift would be accepting legislation that limits automation.




There was a news piece I watched with my father earlier this year about a robot that can be programmed to do hundreds if not thousands of different, non-related jobs depending on which modules you buy for it.  The base cost + modules + maintenance/operations costs over the expected lifespan of the machine was low enough to compete with overseas workers.  It is expected to go into full-scale production very soon.

IOW, it keeps the work in the domestic market and eliminates a bunch of import/export costs...destroying more jobs, *here and abroad.*

Essentially, the world may well be at the dawning of the kinds of post-labor, post-capitalism society you see in some Sci-Fi stories,where machines do most of the work.

Of course, those stories rarely talk about the _transition_.  It could get bloody.  How long does the transition take?  What happens when the working class has no work to go to?  How do they feed & clothe themselves?


----------



## Janx (Dec 24, 2013)

delericho said:


> And as time goes on, jobs become ever-more specialised. In Scotland, we make our first pick of subjects at 13ish. Pick the wrong subjects then, and your choices at 15ish are limited. Those in turn limit your choice of degree. And with so many jobs requiring a degree (and not just any degree, but something 'relevant') the wrong pick can _really_ set you back. In all cases it's _possible_ to retrain or change direction... but it's a whole bunch of extra time, when you may need to be making money on which to live.




This part intrigues me.  Is school in Scotland that restrictive?

At least for me, here in the US, I went to a small school out in the sticks.  Any computer skill I learned, I got from self-study at home.  Providing I graduated, the classes I took had no bearing on what I could take/do in college.  At best, high school influenced how well I scored on placement tests to be able to skip some math or english classes.  I went to a small university and got my BS, and was recruited in college by a major tech firm (not a .com startup) with a plain 3.0 GPA.

So at least from my experience, there's not a huge lock-in on what you do in school, providing you're not stupid, get decent grades, stay out of trouble.

But you do need to be figuring out what you want to do by the time you graduate HS.  I spent my free-time doing computer stuff, so when I hit college, I had a major I was going to stick with and excel at.

I suspect some of the problem is kids are hitting college without that sense of career plan.  The people who took a degree and got work in it are pretty much doing well.  The people who didn't lock in on a degree early seem to flounder.  Anybody who took a fuzzy degree (something not obviously tied to a hard science/career like chemist, biologist, engineer) also tended to suffer as the job market isn't gentle on non-science/engineering degrees.

Given that companies like Exxon are hiring like gang-busters, anybody insisting on not getting a technical degree (computers, chemistry, geology, engineering) is risking wasting their money on a degree so they can make coffee at Starbucks.

That's a mantra of dad's across time to their kids who are proposing spending the money on an Russian Literature degree.  But it holds true.  Go where the money is.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 24, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There was a news piece I watched with my father earlier this year about a robot that can be programmed to do hundreds if not thousands of different, non-related jobs depending on which modules you buy for it.  The base cost + modules + maintenance/operations costs over the expected lifespan of the machine was low enough to compete with overseas workers.  It is expected to go into full-scale production very soon.
> 
> IOW, it keeps the work in the domestic market and eliminates a bunch of import/export costs...destroying more jobs, *here and abroad.*
> 
> ...



And not just basic needs. People need to occupy themselves to live healthy stimulating lives.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 24, 2013)

delericho said:


> I really can't see that happening. There's just too much money to be made.




There's only money to be made if the economy doesn't crash as a result of instituting automation.  



> In a lot of cases, we're already at that point. In the UK there are about a million people seeking work, and about 80k vacancies advertised.




But how many of those missing jobs have been taken by robots?  Not many, I expect.  The recession did not lead to a whole bunch of companies investing in automation all of a sudden to keep capacity up - there wasn't enough money around to buy the products of the extra capacity if they did.  Instead, we simply had a reduction in capacity that hasn't yet bounced back, for various reasons.

In the science-fictiony end of things, there's a simple thought that, once you get good enough with technology, you can produce enough wealth (and by this, I don't mean money, I mean real wealth - food, goods, housing, energy and such) with enough efficiency that your culture can support folks who do no useful work.  This can either be a doomsday scenario (if we cannot adjust), or the path to Star Trek Federation-style utopia, or... goodness knows what.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Dec 24, 2013)

I would say there are a myriad of things that have caused this "phenomenon" of prolonged adolescence; however, I think the chiefest of these would be parenting techniques.  
I am the oldest of 6 kids in my current family (I have one biological sibling and 4 step-siblings).  I left home at 18, got married, joined the Army and never looked back, my younger sister (biological) got married twice, joined a cult and then drifted for years (we both graduated in the 80s).  

My oldest step-brother left home and went to college, married his high school sweetheart, he got his masters in mathematics and she her doctorate in Psychology.  The other 3 have been... less than successful.  (they all graduated in the late 90s early 00s) You could easily point to "first-child" syndrome as we are both the "first biological" children in these scenarios.  You could point out different parenting techniques over the years by all the parents involved. You could point out that the step-children's biological mother is totally F)*$%)  nuts, (no really, I've met mental patients I felt more comfortable around), but I think it has a little more to do with the resolve of the persons involved.  

We each make choices, those that have "easiest road" are usually the ones that hoed that row the hardest.  IOW, why worry?  The cream will always rise to the top, not because they are the best, but because they work hard to get there.  I don't think there is any reason to worry about the number of "adolescent adults" but more the lack of "mature children".  

My opinion is it's just gotten easier to ignore the hard work needed to succeed and just "get by" in this world rather than an actual "dumbing-down" of society as a whole.  Do modern "children" as a whole act "less mature" than generation that came before; probably, but until society stops rewarding the lowest common denominator (politically, socially, etc/) is there really any reason to try?
THAT is probably a better question.


----------



## delericho (Dec 24, 2013)

Janx said:


> This part intrigues me.  Is school in Scotland that restrictive?




It's pretty okay, provided they can fit you into one of three niches:

The science route: take Maths, Physics, Chemistry at S-grade (plus some others to fill out the timetable), then the same at Higher, and then into something science-y at uni.

The language route: take English, plus one or two languages (usually French plus either Spanish or German)... and so on.

The 'arty' route: take either Art & Design and/or Music and/or Drama, and English... and so on.

The problem comes if you don't sit neatly in one of the niches, or if you want to change streams - because at each step you're building on what was done before, and because at each step you're choosing a subset of what you've done before, it's easy to get 'locked in'.

Also, our provision of 'vocational' subjects is pretty awful - some of them have managed to get turned into degree subjects (often leading to lots of wasted time spent reading books when you should be learning by doing), while others are still apprenticeship-based (which means you get to waste several years at high school and then, if you're very lucky, slot into an apprenticeship).

For the people the system works for, it works very, very well. But there's a not insignificant number it fails quite badly. Meaning we have to import, for example, skilled doctors and nurses from abroad while simultaneously having a sizeable number of young people who just can't get jobs.



> That's a mantra of dad's across time to their kids who are proposing spending the money on an Russian Literature degree.  But it holds true.  Go where the money is.




Problem is that people genuinely have different aptitudes (not to mention interests). Had David Beckham and I been swapped at birth, we wouldn't have ended up in the same places - chances are, we'd both have ended up miserable. So, encouraging someone who doesn't enjoy it and/or isn't good at, say, engineering to take such a course is not really the best solution.

Besides, all those starving artists and actors and writers and so on have hugely significantly enriched my life through their output. So it would be nice to think people could continue to make a living in those fields. (And, ideally, it would be better if the arrangement was not that one person got to be JK Rowling, with more money than she'll ever spend, while 99%+ get to never make enough money to live on.)


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 24, 2013)

Janx said:


> One of the things that bugs me about the fast food worker stats is I've heard economists refer to it as a "starter job".  Implying a new worker (i.e. a teenager) gets the job, learns some responsibility, then moves on to a higher paying job.
> 
> That's nice in theory, or in a well running economy with upward mobility slots for everybody.
> 
> ...




Yeah. I just spent 8 months working at what was essentially Indian Fast Food with some service added in. "Starter job"? yeah right. I'm 41, and that was not my first job. But I'm not willing to move to LA, Texas, either of the Dakotas, or San Francisco. (OK, I might drive to SF, but not a great choice). Almost everyone at the Front End of the restaurant had a degree or was finishing one when I started. Now, one has a degree, the new manager has hired mostly HS grads, and a friend of mine who is 60, and hadn't had a job in a few years. He complains that at no time in his life has he been able to afford a house, a car, food, and a girlfriend, and he has worked a number of different jobs.


So school systems in Scotland are like Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies? Once you pick one, you're stuck with it?

Yes, if forced to, people will grow up faster. But it used to be a matter of pride to grow up. You wanted to support yourself and put away childish things (except when playing with your children, which was a reason to have them).

I think we need to put more into making the schools up to date so there are actual job skills, and preparation for the current work place. Heck, half the stuff I needed to know about getting a job never came up in any of the classes I took in HS or college. Part of that is the restrictions put onto teachers, and the disconnect between "real world" and academia. 5-10 years to update a State University class program means that by the time they agree on something and get approval, it is out of date.
Another problem is that in spite of all the pep talks, the economy is still in horrible shape. (Let's face it, when was the last time the economy was in Good shape? Late 90s? Sorta maybe?)

But again, delayed childhood... Some people don't seem to think it is a problem at all. Maybe I was just brought up too old fashioned. Maybe I don't fit in this "modern" world. But it seems to me that those who do grow up sooner will have a serious edge over those who don't.


----------



## delericho (Dec 24, 2013)

Umbran said:


> There's only money to be made if the economy doesn't crash as a result of instituting automation.




True.



> But how many of those missing jobs have been taken by robots?  Not many, I expect.




This is true, but automation is the _second_ wave. The first wave, the one that accounts for a lot of (unskilled and semi-skilled) jobs, is outsourcing. There are many jobs that maybe need an actual person to do them, but don't need that person to be in the UK to do them. So, when India and China are able to offer millions of people both willing and able to do the jobs for less, it's no great surprise that companies shift the labour abroad to cut their costs.

(That's not a "they took our jobs"-style rant. It's just a feature of the global marketplace. And it is gradually equalising. Sadly, I fear it's equalising just in time for the jobs to go away entirely.)

Additionally, a lot of jobs have simply gone away. Much of Scotland, Wales, and the north of England used to rely heavily on industries that have been wound up over the past few decades. And for one reason or another, they can't really come back now - the required skill-base is out of date, or the required infrastructure is gone... or, of course, the natural resources were just played out.

There is _some_ hope on that front, at least - it does appear that the north of England may be sitting on a trove of oil that we can now extract, while Scotland may be able to benefit from green energy... maybe.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 24, 2013)

Umbran said:


> In the science-fictiony end of things, there's a simple thought that, once you get good enough with technology, you can produce enough wealth (and by this, I don't mean money, I mean real wealth - food, goods, housing, energy and such) with enough efficiency that your culture can support folks who do no useful work.  This can either be a doomsday scenario (if we cannot adjust), or the path to Star Trek Federation-style utopia, or... goodness knows what.




I'm a lawyer- I already do no useful work! 



sabrinathecat said:


> Yeah. I just spent 8 months working at what was essentially Indian Fast Food with some service added in. "Starter job"? yeah right. I'm 41, and that was not my first job. But I'm not willing to move to LA, Texas, either of the Dakotas, or San Francisco.



Careful- more than in any other state, the robustness of the jobs market in Texas is built mostly on service/starter jobs.  The "Texas Miracle" our Governor likes to crow about isn't so good as he makes it out to be.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 24, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm a lawyer- I already do no useful work!



You'll be easily replaced with equally effective legal representation.


----------



## Herobizkit (Dec 25, 2013)

It's threads like this that make me, age 37, college graduate (at age 35) and pretty much one of those types of people that the OP complains about...

... makes me want to kill myself.

And I'm not even joking.

The state of affairs with the world today, the job market, the hyper-focus on youth, the fact that my life's half over and I still have anything yet to show for it...

Yeah.

The only thing I can really add is that with the saturation of geek culture, it's now considered cool to extend your childhood well into you 40's AND in many cases make some profit from doing so.  Everyone can now self-publish, self-promote, and self-manage via the internet... but the internet is so saturated with self-works that it's getting nigh impossible to find the good talent among the mediocre.

I live in New Brunswick, Canada, which is now officially the second poorest province in Canada (next to PEI).  More and more frequently, people are either pulling up stakes to move West (because that's where the jobs are) or getting knocked up early and doing the family/welfare thing.

The retirees aren't as well off as they'd hoped, and my generation is going to be worse off.

And this generation's birth rate (I think - I have no source) appears to be the lowest in decades.

Barring a great famine, plague, or war to cull some of the population, there just aren't enough jobs for the amount of people we have.

I apologize if this sounds a touch melodramatic, but just count me among the "immature" nearly 40-somethings who can't get his life together and has to hang onto a crappy job for decent-ish pay because he can't afford to do or go anywhere else.

Thus endeth the sermon.


----------



## Janx (Dec 25, 2013)

So for you guys who are "stuck", is there some path or choice you wish you had taken that you feel would have prevented your current situation?

It's too easy for folks like me to say "you should have done X" when in truth, I don't know if X was available or viable for somebody else.

Personally, I got lucky and chose the right path.  I grew up on welfare.  I discovered computers in the town library, taught myself how to program and never looked back.  I used student loans to go to a cheaper, smaller college.  I was a B average student in school, and still got picked up by a tech company.

I can appreciate people being stuck, as the rest of my family pretty much was.  But I can also see that in some cases, it ain't that hard to get out if you choose the right path that naturally leads to success and survivability.

For me, my natural aptitude (programming) got me on the right path at the right time, so until the Outsourcing takes over, I'm pretty solid career wise.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 25, 2013)

> So for you guys who are "stuck", is there some path or choice you wish you had taken that you feel would have prevented your current situation?




I'm a nice guy and beloved of many, but I think I would have been better off today had I more discipline in life.

It's like this: I'm a genius.  Just barely- I'm smart enough that I sailed through most of my academics (except the stuff that bored me), but not so much that I could to do the "Doogie Howser" thing and attend college at age 11.  And as extracurriculars go, I was allowed to quit when things got tough, almost without consequence.  Result- I'm not as disciplined as I could/should be.  I have followed the path of water, always taking the easiest route to my destinations, and never really pushing myself to reach my full potential.

So, had my parents forced me to stick with the BSA when we moved to Colorado and the troop was planning on getting their clear "Sub-Zero" camping bead; had I not been allowed to slack off over the tail end of the summer before my senior year of HS so I made the football team again instead of being cut; etc., I'd be a better person, I think.  More focused and less chaotic, at the very least.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 26, 2013)

I think a lot of it still, fortunately, depends upon talent and work ethic.  Simply keep looking to do more and then do your best at it.  My brother and myself, for example, have achieved a fair level of professional success and have done so without degrees.  I'd never suggest to some kid today to skip college or whatever but it somehow worked for me.  

My brother is in management and is being groomed for an executive position.  He fell into his career.  He drove truck for a company - not even CDL level driving - and eventually worked his way into managing the shipping floor.  He parlayed that into successively higher positions at different companies.  Again, no degree.

I'm in the tech field and I fell into my career as well.  I needed to get out of factory work (glad I did - two years after I quit a 21 year old kid died on the shop floor where I used to work) and my mother worked for a phone company.  She suggested I apply for the mailroom and I did ... but I never got the job.  Instead I got an entry level position in an entry level department that dealt with 911 and the very, very basic tech side of making sure it worked correctly.  I then moved to a different department that expanded and was more technical - some switch programming.  I again moved (laterally this time) to a dept that focused even more on getting into the switches and making sure the orders were processed correctly.  That job moved out of state and they didn't properly incetivise me to move with it so I didn't.  Got a job at the company I'm currently at  - entry level in their Telecom dept - and continued to move up.  They made a position for me to allow me to grow and I eventually left the Telecom side of things and am where I'm at now.  I got this position because they gave me some work from this dept and I did very well with it.  At any rate, I took a $2/hr pay cut when I moved to this company.  As I sit today, I make a little more than double what they hired me at six years ago.

Unfortunately not all companies are the same and not everyone will even give you a chance without papers.  Go to school, kiddies - but take this sort of approach to heart.  Want more and do more but, more than that, show that you really want it by how you do it.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 26, 2013)

My main problem is that I work, but I don't network or play politics.
I sit at a desk and WORK.

Yes, I know "Networking" is hard work, but I don't have the aptitude or patience to play that field.
I'm busy.
My office politics was to bring in a batch of fresh-made cookies every Thursday and leave them in an open cubicle for everyone. People complained I was ruining their diets, but they still came by. Heck, some people came down from the 6th floor for cookies.

If I'd spent time networking, I might have held onto that job for another 3-8 months (before the division was outsourced), and there's a remote chance I might be working some place now. On the other hand, I'm a graphics guy, and I use a PC, not a mac.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 26, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> My main problem is that I work, but I don't network or play politics.



Well, most networking is done outside the office.



sabrinathecat said:


> On the other hand, I'm a graphics guy, and I use a PC, not a mac.




By 'a graphics guy', what exactly do you mean? You do art, you do fonts and design, you do website buttons and elements, what?

I was under the impression that Mac used to be the only thing for design and publishing, but that the difference was so small now that it didn't matter unless you were using some specialized programs - is that not the case?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 27, 2013)

WayneLigon said:


> Well, most networking is done outside the office.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The control and alt buttons on the PC have their functions reversed on the mac. This means that the keyboard shortcuts that are integral to 95% of actions are reversed. Sorting out that slow-down and fighting the trained reflex is extremely frustrating and time consuming. And if those functions have drastically different results, can cause a lot of hard work to disappear. As for the Mac being better for graphics--yeah, in about 1993. Which was about when Amiga was the top-notch animation computer outside of a cray.
I'm a generalist. I do not do still life traditional canvas painting, needlepoint, crochet, or compositional art photography. The "don't" list is considerably shorter than the "do" list.


----------



## Herobizkit (Dec 27, 2013)

Janx said:


> So for you guys who are "stuck", is there some path or choice you wish you had taken that you feel would have prevented your current situation?



I never had a solid plan coming of high school.  I wanted to make video games, and to do that, I (assumed I) had to go to university.  I tried Computer Science, got on AP my first year and failed the required Calculus requirement twice... and there was four years of Calculus to do.  I switched to Arts my second year and dropped out during my third year as I still had no idea, clue or direction to go.

After that, I got a job at a call centre and basically never stopped floating in and out of customer service jobs.  As long as I was making enough to cover my basic needs and some party money, I was golden.

Then I turned 25, then 35, went back to college, got a Radio Broadcasting diploma only to learn that I really hate the radio business, and now I'm 37 and still lost.

I've never been pulled into any direction career-wise; I'm kind of always in survival mode so customer service is where I ended up.


----------



## nightwind1 (Dec 29, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Actually, I think you underestimate that effect.  It is difficult to go out and earn a living when there are no living-wage jobs that will hire you.
> 
> Requiring college doesn't help.  But it is worse than that.  Remember that we had a major recession back after in 2001, and another in 2007.  It has been a long while since it was easy for a new person in the workforce to get a decent job.
> 
> ...



Of course there's a plan. It involves HAARP and chemtrails.


----------



## Janx (Dec 31, 2013)

Herobizkit said:


> I never had a solid plan coming of high school.  I wanted to make video games, and to do that, I (assumed I) had to go to university.  I tried Computer Science, got on AP my first year and failed the required Calculus requirement twice... and there was four years of Calculus to do.  I switched to Arts my second year and dropped out during my third year as I still had no idea, clue or direction to go.
> 
> After that, I got a job at a call centre and basically never stopped floating in and out of customer service jobs.  As long as I was making enough to cover my basic needs and some party money, I was golden.
> 
> ...




Ah yes, the classic Computer Science requires Math chain of college education...

While I tested out of some math (meaning I'm smarter at it than I admit), I hate math.

So when I got to college, met my advisor, and saw CS was all math, I changed majors to CIS with a CS minor.  Meaning I got all the CS classes my college had, and a lot of business classes, as well as database and analysis to design software.

Much easier, just as effective.  And very practical.

I did technical support in college, QA for a few years at a mega-corp and then transitioned into software development and been doing business app design ever since.


----------



## Herobizkit (Jan 1, 2014)

[MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION], I'm glad you had enough common sense to have an idea of what you wanted when you went to school.  I was 17 and clueless when I went.

I'm giving consideration to going back to college again before I hit 40 and hoping to do something other than custserv until I retire... but I have no idea what, and at my "advanced" age, starting a new career path seems unlikely with today's preference given to youth.


----------



## Janx (Jan 1, 2014)

Herobizkit said:


> [MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION], I'm glad you had enough common sense to have an idea of what you wanted when you went to school.  I was 17 and clueless when I went.
> 
> I'm giving consideration to going back to college again before I hit 40 and hoping to do something other than custserv until I retire... but I have no idea what, and at my "advanced" age, starting a new career path seems unlikely with today's preference given to youth.




It worked for me, so advising somebody with a technical interest is pretty easy, as I know a path that works via IT.  Folks outside of that, I got no clue how they can get a foot in the door.


----------

