Millennials Vs. Baby Boomers Gov Care Vs. personal Responsibility
I know I am showing my stripes here, but . . .
Check out this blog post and see if you see any truth in it.
International Liberty - A Lost Generation of Socialism Youth?
And this parody:
GAOne sentence really stands out: "In other words, it seems like Americans are morphing into Europeans.".
(The video is hilarious)Where in this list should the article you linked to be added:
Millennials are killing bar soap
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mille … 2017-06-09
How Millennials Killed Mayonnaise
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/08/ … llennials/
Millennials are killing the golf industry
https://www.businessinsider.com/millenn … S&IR=T
Are Millenials Killing Relationships
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nati … 535860002/
The Millennial Trends That Are Killing Cable
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes … 77ebf82293
Millennials No Longer Use Doorbells
https://www.buzzfeed.com/aliciabarron/t … rrified-to
Millennials are killing the napkin industry
https://www.businessinsider.com/millenn … S&IR=T
Are you certain this is not just a case of:
I would rank it by importance Don, at the top of your list.
Unfortunately, I didn't look for a funny meme telling you just what I think the case is. So you are one-up in the humor category. ;-)
GA"I would rank it by importance Don, at the top of your list."
And where, by importance, should we put it in this list:
"Our youth have an insatiable desire for wealth; they have bad manners and atrocious customs regarding dressing and their hair and what garments or shoes they wear."
(Plato, 5th century BC)
"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love to chatter in place of exercise."
(Socrates, 5th century BC
"[Young people] are high-minded because they have not yet been humbled by life, nor have they experienced the force of circumstances...They think they know everything, and are always quite sure about it."
(Aristotle, 4th Century BC)
"The beardless youth...does not foresee what is useful, squandering his money."
(Horace, 1st Century BC)
"Our young men have grown slothful. There is not a single honorable occupation for which they will toil night and day. They sing and dance and grow effeminate and curl their hair and learn womanish tricks of speech; they are as languid as women and deck themselves out with unbecoming ornaments. Without strength, without energy, they add nothing during life to the gifts with which they were born - then they complain of their lot."
(Seneca the Elder, 1st Century AD)
And we're still only in the 1st century. Apparently every generation is seemingly the worst, until the next that is, which kind of renders such criticisms meaningless.
The fact is, everything we own; every object we cherish or desire; every endeavor that impresses us, was created or accomplished by a generation that was, at some point in the past, dismissed by generations before it for various reasons.
The next generation is fine.
The odd thing is, most of the youth I know are hard working, responsible individuals. Of course we have some do-nothings, but, when that's the case, most often the parents are also. So, are their capitalist parents to blame? Maybe a certain sense of collectivism is what we need to foster better attitudes about contributions to society. Of course, this is all anecdotal. All I know for sure is that the youth will do what they do, and the older generations, as a whole, always lament that fact.
Excellent response. I will add that the nature of work is drastically changing, which means our way of surviving must also drastically change. I know most of y'all probably think Andrew Yang is just a gimmick, but he is ahead of his time. We will eventually have a minimum basic income to compensate for the inevitable massive loss of jobs due to automation.
Technology and such is definitely affecting the nature of work. What use will we have for laborers? What will happen to that middle class that actually spends money which is the foundation of our economy? I'm actually warming to Yang a bit as a candidate. UBI even appeals to some right wingers who understand that it's much more efficient than our current programs. It can also foster innovation and hope that leads to harder work. I think we could eliminate some waste involved with other aid programs and UBI pay for itself. Plus, with Yang's plan, everyone gets the grand a month, mo matter income level. I agree that UBI will happen eventually.
Not so sure about a "massive job loss" from automation, not when we have record unemployment with automation.
But for sure the nature of work is changing. Not only is automation changing things but we are seeing more and more people looking down their noses at physical labor. Those jobs are there, but although they often pay very well they are not jobs that youth wants to take as a career. Construction, service work, mechanic, maintenance, even factory jobs - these are not appreciated as they used to be or as they should be.I was listening to a youtube program which stated the same EXACT thing as Wilderness stated.
On the whole, I agree with this - most (over 50%) of youth are hardworking.
But that's not the whole story. I also see many that use parents for partial support. Not because they have to, but because it makes life easier for them. They sponge off parents for housing, food, etc. because they then have more left to play with. They can afford expensive coffee, concerts, bars and better cars if someone else picks up the tab for some of their basic support.
Plus, just as in the video we have a great many (probably over 50%) that want someone else to pay for their education, for their health care and for other assistance such as food stamps. Although they can support themselves, it is much nicer if parents or society adds to their earnings and they can afford more than they earn.I think some of these "sponging" individuals you speak of are actually a bit older than the college and high school-aged group I'm thinking of. Many of them are Trump supporters around here as are their parents. Of course, we will always have some who are just takers...all ages and all political leanings.
Also, in reality, I think more families should stick together and pool their resources, voluntarily of course. It will likely be required moving forward as will/are assistance programs.
Oh, and those job losses from tech are still coming, we can only educate our nation to be at the forefront of a new emerging economy. This means at least making college cheaper.
My job is at risk..I teach computers to do my job. Many factory jobs are now performed in prisons here also. Will that trend continue?"Many of them are Trump supporters around here as are their parents."
So much for an intelligent discourse. Just have to get the obligatory bash of Trump and now anyone that doesn't bash him themselves, right?
Carry on.Ha..straight for the emotional attempt to hurt feelings. That's intelligent conversation? You should know me better than to think that tactic impedes my brilliant mind anyway, lol.
So we can group people based on age, and point out that Democrats want freebies but state the fact that Trump supporters are among the takers is off limits, and shut it all down. I understand. Carry on with your Democrat freebie loving youngster bashing I guess.
I think you just saw an excuse to avoid intelligent discourse and ran with it.Oh, I didn't limit to Democrats or youngsters. I didn't even mention political stance at all, unlike your little slam against Trump supporters
I'd also disagree that it isn't college age kids; while I personally think it's great when parents can give their kids room and board while being educated, that "being educated" part says it all, for kids are living with parents to an ever greater age today, whether going to school or not. Seems like I saw that the average for supporting ones self has risen to the mid 20's, where it used to be 18 or 19 (more if going to school) and we see more and more people (often with children) being supported by their parents well into their 30's and 40's.Did I state "you" in particular? If you check, the Dems and their freebies are mentioned here. At any rate, the sensitivity to anything anti-Trump is funny. My point is simply that takers come from both sides of the aisle and all walks of life.
There are so many factors involved with "the average for supporting ones self" that it's difficult to surmise anything from that observation. I also know many people in their 30's and 40's who help out their elderly parents...what are they thinking? These generational skirmishes are silly.They ARE silly...until I see my wife's parents, in poor health and in their mid 80's, still working to support their grown grand daughter and her boyfriend. Truly, I don't see such a thing as unusual anymore; kids stay home because they have lived a life of luxury and ease and refuse to give it up simply because they're expected to support themselves.
It's one thing to help out ones parents when they are in need, it's quite another to give up retirement dreams so a grown child can afford to play more or chase a futile dream of being a rap or UTube star while not working as they do.The silly point is the generalizations...not the individual circumstances. I mean, I see my wife's mom's income being supplemented by her grand kids.
I dunno, Hard Sun. I'm not sure at all that the generalization is that far out of line: when the average age is around 25-30 I see a problem. Recognizing that in some societies that might be the cultural norm to leave the nest later (or never, for that matter) it is NOT the cultural norm in the US. Rather, it is a willingness to have someone else pay for the niceties the kids want but can't pay for.
A quick search produced only one result:
https://www.healthguidance.org/entry/14 … e-out.html
Oh DEAR GOD(angelic chorus singing hallelujah 1000 times), I agree w/Wilderness. I TOTALLY AGREE slapping myself 10,000 times.
Nicely said, I agree with your analogy on youth. Most that I am acquainted with are doing pretty well. And yes there are and always have been some that just don't thrive.
Funny clip.
Computer and automation is a secondary enhancer to the heart, hands and mind of an individual, at least in my lifetime. From neck down you are worth minimum wage. From the next up your worth as much as you can imagine.
From experience of breaking 25 world record scale sculptures, it was done mostly by hands on. Same for my urban farming being my more efficient, more quality and profitable than the average farmer.
The system dumbs down the average worker to be smart enough to run their machine. But dumb enough to work harder and longer hours, no overtime pay, lacking too many social benefits. I see 80% disliking their work, barely surviving a few pay checks from being homelessness.
Am I just a lucky one or just working smarter?Oops, I think I should have been more clear in what my point was. And that point was a changing of generational attitudes.
I agree with hard sun's first comment about the young folks he sees. I didn't mean I thought all millennials were as the parody portrayed, but that there has been a shift in attitudes of personal responsibility. Of course, I do have to wonder where the media finds the ones that they interview that do appear to fit the picture the blog post painted. Also, does it mean anything that this is generally the attitude displayed by most protesters that get camera face time?
Regarding the video . . . I thought it was a funny jab at the Democrat candidates promising all these new freebies - if you just vote for them. I think those ideas are silly. Maybe not the concept of changing times that they represent but the 'vote for me and get it free' promises that are being made.
GADo you really think people believe "it" is free? I don't think so. Investing in, say, college for smart, motivated young people who otherwise could not afford it is simply a wise investment in my view. That's just one "freebie" as you call it. I don't support all of the Democratic candidates' proposals, and I also know none of them are "free." I think. people are smarter than you're portraying.
How is it a wise investment to pay for someone to go to college when we can get all the graduates we need (and more) by letting them pay for it themselves, less the amount we already subsidize state universities?
And yes, I think a great number of people think it is "free"...or at least we can make the "rich" pick up the tab which is the same thing in their mind. So-called "entitlements" have become so prevalent on our country that it has become the same thing as "free" to a great many people. That someone else is actually paying the tab never enters their mind - just that they are getting "free" money (housing, food, health care, education, transportation, home improvements, whatever).We are sorely lacking in Americans that can fill the tech positions that America needs. I heard Mark Zuckerberg state this while he was fighting for an immigration bill that included more lenient visa requirements for educated immigrants. But, carry on with your intelligent conversation.
This is true. Education is not keeping up with the demand.
What does education focus on these days?
People's feelings, victimization, self fulfilment?
1969: When students graduated college, they pursued a career correlated to their major. A college degree was an achievement rewarded with a traditional job.
2019:Post-graduate plans today might include a year traveling abroad, a graduate program, or creating content as an Instagram influencer.
1969: 206,000 students earned an associates degree and 792,000 earned bachelors degree in a subject like economics, engineering or education.
2019: About 1,900,000 bachelor degrees and 1,050,600 associate degrees have been handed out in fields as specifically differentiated as citrus, adventure education or bagpiping.
Its a different culture children have been brought up in, and their expectations are different.
Older generations learned there were winners and losers, not everyone got a trophy.
Older generations found ways of earning money before reaching their teenage years, working jobs (ie - bagging groceries), having paper routes, mowing lawns, etc. Today in almost every state working at such a young age is illegal, or puts the person at risk of being sued should the non-adult be hurt on their property.
Decades ago college education was focused on useful majors medical, engineering, economics, information critical to running cities and building a nation.
Today there are degrees like Therapeutic Recreation, Art History, Self-Awareness and Personal Assessment degrees that people put themselves into tens of thousands of dollars in debt to receive. And guess what, there aren't any jobs out there waiting for them other than what any High School grad could get.
Perhaps with the advancement of computer games, social networking, and useless education topics, we have begun slipping into a state of Social Delusion where people don't recognize reality or even know what it is.
Truly, there are people in America today that don't recognize that hamburgers come from Cows, they are disconnected from the fact that their juicy cheeseburger comes from a living animal.
There are many people 26 years of age in America, graduating from their 'higher education' in the full bloom of adulthood, an age where the previous generations usually had been working for years, or had their own families/children, that haven't worked a day in their lives, that still depend on their parents for just about everything.
There are always smart people, there are always hard workers, in every generation. But the majority of these newer young generations did not learn the hard lessons, or the need to work, to achieve, that was instilled in preceding generations almost by default.
There were no guarantees for older generations, you didn't expect to be taken care of for life, by anyone, or anything. Not for most people.
I suppose if you think a wealthy but mediocre kid attending Harvard because of Daddy will be a better contributor to society than a bright, motivated but impoverished kid, then your comment makes sense. As for the rest, I am well aware of your personal views about the responsibilities (or should I say lack of responsibility) of the super rich to the system in which they prosper and which they have subsequently warped, over the course of many years, to their advantage.
Yes, I think "free" is the message being heard. But that is different from your point about "investing."
I agree with the societal benefit of investing in the minds of our future. However, I don't think "free higher learning for all, knotheads and achievers alike" is the way to do it.
There must be a cost for something to be valued. I think we could achieve the goal you mentioned with merit and need programs of scholarships. A person in need gets scholarships to give it a go, (but a continued ride must be earned), and a non-poor achiever earns a scholarship through merit.
Bingo, both get a shot without life-crippling student debt. Knotheads might squeeze under the radar for one year, but after that, no merit - no scholarship.
Or something like that. That was just off the top of my head. Whatever the program, there must be a cost to the recipient in order for it to be valued.
You might be right that I am underestimating folks, but I get my impressions from the campaign rally crowds and candidate supporters.
GAI don't think anyone is proposing free college for everyone with no conditions, but I haven't spent a lot of time on the details as none of it will occur as proposed anyway.
Bernie hit it, with free 4 year college and free community college. He would force anyone trading in stocks or bonds to cover the cost. The value of your 401/IRA contribution just went down.
He also wants to halve the interest rate on loans already agreed to.
https://www.countable.us/bills/s806-115 … ct-of-2017
So well said, Panther.
Everybody is so worried about China, but you can bet that they have thrown in the kitchen sink preparing their society and their youth through education to be prepared to make the 21st century China's century.
Equality of access to education and better jobs can be go a long way toward eliminating the power and influenced of the pampered few. Consider equality as a linchpin for this society's very survival.
And while the more extreme of their ideas will be challenged, I say they are going in the correct direction, and I expect conservatives are going to be opposed regardless. But, I am not terribly concerned about them anyway.They have indeed. I suppose that is good reason for everyone to be worried about China.
As for the rest, while we focus on not infringing on another person's feelings, and ever more equality for ever more diversified victim identities, and all the other wonderful advances coming to the forefront of our national consciousness, you can bet China will be working to ensure our self absorbed civilization is appropriately resituated to being second to their own on the global stage economically and in every other conceivable way.
And regardless of your race or wealth, your children and grand children will live with that result just as well as mine.
And its probably for the best, a nation that doesn't believe in its decency, its history, or its accomplishments in the world doesn't belong leading, it belongs following a nation which does believe in those things and does believe in its superiority.Ken, it is more than just feelings, it perspectives and points of view as to how this "system" actually works on the ground that will keep us apart.
The old days of who has the biggest military presence and all that is 20th century, it is now all about economy and finance that will now separate the wheat from the chaff among nations.
We are going to have to invest in our people and leave aside the idea of government controlled and influenced by Koch Brothers types, who are there to line their pockets and the people be damned. Such are the unfounded fear of Socialism from the Right which is an excuse to keep the same robber barons in continued positions of influence and control.
The "service Economy" idea is passé as flipping burgers and slinging hash and is not going to get us up front. Like Germany for example, we need inexpensive or free trade schools to educate and prepare ALL of our people not just the "Wentworths" to fill the challenging jobs of the current century with commensurate wages and salaries to match. That is what I mean by "equal opportunity" and leveling the playing field as Warren suggests. The contentiousness in society that you obviously fear will not be abated until these issues are properly addressed, in my humble opinion. China or no China.
The system so many conservatives continue to support is simply not viable in the same way it once was.
So, either we move forward together, or we don't move at all and should prepare to take our place as a second rate power.Credence,
You are right, that the focus needs to be on tech/stem, and that schools need to prioritize that if we are going to be able to be competitive or successful as a nation in the future.
But that is not what is going on, our "higher education" is focusing on anything but that, that is what I mean by "feelings", this is also on par with the decline of men in 'higher education', as women come to dominate the campuses, they can't force women into stem curriculum, so they adapt and offer things like Self-Awareness and Personal Assessment degrees.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc … em/553592/
https://www.govtech.com/education/Femal … asing.html
We have the absolutely absurd becoming the norm in our society, such as a discussion which has entered the national stage about not using words like he, she, her, him. When a society is focused on such delusional perspectives, it is only a matter of time before it succumbs to outside forces which destroy it all together, the more our society tries to subvert reality to become something it is not, the more certain that we will suffer detrimentally.Ken,
Yes, but if there were enough demand that could be created by those that can acquire higher education or trade school educations at little or no cost, could we change the lay of the land some?
We still have curriculums in math, sciences, engineering, etc. Can we really say that the dearth of men on college campuses today relative to women is due solely because of the increased presence of women and their influence on curriculum?
The real reason is that over the last few years having a degree isn't the same ticket to a middle class lifestyle and upward mobility that it was at one time. Post high school education, whatever the route, needs to better correlate with economic opportunity and success. Thoughtful educators should be creating curriculum relevant to the needs of our younger people in general to allow them to acquire skills and abilities that has value In the face of today's economic reality. Since the viability of our economy into the future would ultimately depend upon their success.
I can relate to frustrations associated with some of the trends you speaking about. But, that does not change the fact that we always need to sort out the trivial from the meaningful and substantial need for change. Haven't we always had to do that?I watched a very interesting discussion on the matter not long ago.
In essence the answer to that question is yes, we can definitively say that.
It is due to freedom of choice. Women choose not to pursue STEM for a variety of reasons, but that we live in a 'welfare state' where they are provided complete economic and social freedom, they choose to pursue other interests despite considerable effort to direct young women to them.
I don't know why boys like to construct things, and girls prefer the medical field, I don't know why men enjoy sitting in front of a computer all day coding while women prefer writing articles... but this is the way it is, and it has nothing to do with a 'patriarchal sexist system' and the more the "Progressive Left' pushes its delusional agendas, the further along we get to our own social and economical demise.
Not to make the argument cyclical, but college faculties are in general out of touch with economic realities, as well as general reality, a lot of 'safe spaces' and SJW classes, and a lot less science and tech... unless you go to a very niche university like MIT.
But compared to China, which pours Trillions into STEM and prioritizes their schools to focus their students on them, what efforts we have going on now in America is paltry is comparison.
Imagine Wilt Chamberlain in his prime playing against a 95 year old man suffering from dementia and arthritis... this is where the present and future is between America and China.
America is focused on analyzing the lint in its belly button, while China is looking to capture the stars.
China builds the best, and the majority of the world's computer chips, not America. China builds the best and most high tech 5G hardware, not America. China leads the world in bringing new high tech and bio advances to the world, not America.
Maybe I am wrong, but I see the trends continuing, and irreversible, our decline, and their ascension can be slowed, but not stopped.
I am not frustrated by it so much as resigned to it. As a people, as a nation we are not even cognizant of the fact that we are in a competition with China for global, economical, technological superiority.
China's FOCUS is on STEM and Superiority, ours is on SJW concerns and Open Border equality. I can tell you based on that, which nation will be leading the world very soon, and for decades to come.Being in America rather than China, we all are afforded choices. Economic and social freedom. How does being a woman afford them more of that then men, necessarily?
As we move society toward more woman successfully entering what were once occupations set aside for men, I expect more women to move into STEM fields than what we have today.
While I can say that China no longer has a Command Economy associated with a Communist System, it is hardly Democratic and can control more variables than we can in America consistent with our freedoms.
We at one time could both build a more just and equitable society while still reaching for the stars, where is that America? China dismisses the former for the latter, is that America?
Yes, we have to compete, but our vaunted values have to be maintained in the process. I don't think that it is too late, but being conservative, flinty, not seeing the long term "big picture" is our greatest impediment right now. We have to educate the best and train the best with everybody getting a turn at bat, and invest in our people like China obviously is investing in theirs.
I rather not lead the world, if the price is a authoritarian or totalitarian society."I expect more women to move into STEM fields than what we have today."
Why? As Ken points out women statistically do not do well in the STEM fields and are far more interested in the health care or other fields that revolve around people rather than machines. Do you think you can change biology by legislation? If you can, do you think it would be a worthy goal, or would the result be losing fantastic surgeons, pediatricians or counselors?Wilderness, their interests are not "biological".
While mostly men meet the physical qualifications for being firefighters there a few women that can qualify if not as many. Those few are entitled to an opportunity to compete. This is not lowering standards.
Not all women are the same and each should be accepted and eliminated based on merit.
Go see a film titled "hidden Figures" the story of three Black female mathematicians that calculated trajectories for launch and re entries for the Mercury and Gemini programs. Why did it take me 50 years to learn of their contributions, while History insures that we knew the Mercury astronauts?
Perhaps it was a cultural bias that discredits the contributions of certain people based on race and gender. That has nothing to do with biology. But, that is discussion for another forum.+1000000000000000000000 Credence. Credence, see my abovementioned remarks on the subject.
Did you miss the statistically part of the comment? Yes, there have been great women in the STEM field - the women that did the calculation are some as is Madame Curie, and there are many more.
But that does not change the statistics of it - specific instances never do. And yes, it is "biological" - men and women differ in more than physical traits and anatomy. There are factors that evolution has built into our brains that differ between men and women, and some of that is what is necessary in STEM. Women most definitely have their (mental) strengths, just as men do, on a statistical basis. The vast differences between individual people obviously override those statistical differences, but the differences for a large population remain the same.
Let me play the devil's advocate here. Many women didn't go into the STEM fields because they were indoctrinated or rather inculcated w/the premise that STEM fields weren't feminine. Women were geared to go into the softer fields such as the humanities & the soft sciences. Until recently, girls were tracked into the soft sciences & humanities by parents, teachers, & the overall society.
There are women who are great in STEM. Also what is forgotten that there is discrimination against women regarding STEM careers. Women who have STEM specialties have to face & overcome male aversion to them. However, more & more women are majoring in STEM subjects.All very true, but again that does not change the underlying statistics.
Of course that does not mean women should be treated differently the men in the field, but that includes any special treatment based on the sex of the person.
This was true... 50 years ago.
The effort schools, government, non-profits, etc. has put into enticing women into STEM fields has been significant and has been going on for decades.
50 years ago, men made up almost 70% of graduating college students.
Today women make up almost 70% of graduating college students.
Correlating with this change in percentages, and the focus on women, has been the continued decline in STEM graduates.
Among the top five degrees, health professions is the only STEM field that has grown significantly since the '70s to cover over 9% of college graduates. Other STEM fields are suffering.
The percentage of engineering majors declined since the '70s, while degrees in physical science dwindled down to 1.5%; a paltry 1% of graduates decided to major in mathematics and statistics. And though the percentage of graduates in computer science and IT has increased incrementally, the number remains dismally small.
According to the Do Something, the United States used to be a leader in quantity of diplomas received yearly. Moreover, the level of American education was considered to be the highest in the whole world.
But this has changed and now America ranks only 36th in the world, both quality and quantity-wise as compared to Shanghai (1st), Singapore (2nd), Hong Kong (3rd), etc.
Chinese graduates aged 25 to 34 will rise 300 percent by 2030 compared to just 30 percent in the U.S. and Europe. STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) has become a pretty big deal in China's flourishing universities.
In 2013, 40 percent of Chinese graduates completed a degree in a STEM subject, more than twice the share in American third level institutions.
Workers with STEM qualifications have become increasingly important to global prosperity and unsurprisingly, China is leading the way. The World Economic Forum reported that China had 4.7 million new STEM graduates in 2016 while India had 2.6 million. The United States had 568,000 recent STEM graduates in 2016.
As I stated in earlier posts on this thread, America's focus on 'feelings', 'safe spaces', and SJW causes has primed us for a swift decline on the world stage in the coming years... we will be so outclassed by China ten years from now, the shift from global leader to global has-been will be shocking to us all, even myself, and I know it is coming.
Unfortunately all the official data shows otherwise (see links in previous posts).
Are you deliberately misinterpreting the information I provided?
Did you read the links or ignore them?
The facts are, despite great effort by schools and government to coerce women into STEM fields, they are less interested in them than ever.
Women have complete freedom of choice, they are actually beneficiaries of grants, scholarships, etc. that provide a college education if they pursue STEM fields.
The numbers interested in STEM are getting lower because they are free to choose. The numbers have gone down, not up, in the last decade.
Also, your views are rather dated, women are not "moving into fields once dominated by men" , women DOMINATE the education system, from 1st grade to Masters and everything in between. Schools are orientated around them, not boys. Boys that can't sit quietly in class and focus on assignments all day like girls can have Ritalin shoved down their throats or are put in a 'special behavior' class so they don't disrupt the 'normal' students.
Today, almost 70% of college graduates with bachelor’s degrees are women. This is a total reversal of the graduation breakdown by gender from 50 years ago. And yet the number of women graduating from STEM fields is lowering.
Which values are those?
The values of earning what you get, working for a better life?
Family values? Sacrificing personal wants and desires for husband, wife or child?
Patriotic values? Believing in the Freedom and Liberty provided by the Constitution and wanting to preserve the culture and history particular to Americans?
I would say Progressive Liberalism is directly opposed to most if not all of those things.First I want to apologize for not more carefully perusing your supporting material.
The situation you present is unfortunate, we just have to make the STEM curriculum available to all that want it otherwise.
The value is equal opportunity, where those that want the opportunity can pursue it regardless of current wealth, upward mobility etc.
Liberals are not against family values and sacrifices within them. But if that means we consign one gender to domestication as we did earlier in the last century, it is not going to fly.
Why do conservatives believe that they are the only advocates for freedom and liberty? Your concepts of freedom and liberty could well be my slavery. Your culture and history are particular only to you and white Americans, our perspectives are different, so we are not on the same page there.
I say that progressive liberalism is guarantor of the things that conservatives just sound off about.
Your apology is appreciated and accepted.
Yes, STEM is available to all and there are plenty of enticements for women, financial and otherwise. So, its simply a matter of them not wanting to pursue certain fields. Sadly, too many refuse to accept this reality and want to double down on their discrimination and victims of patriarchy scripts.
Consider this, if we flipped the situation, and blamed women for keeping men out of Nursing:
Women To Men Ratio In Nursing is dominated by women, over 90 percent are women depending on the type of nursing. According to United States Bureau of Labor, the number of men who work as nurses has tripled since 1970, rising from 2.7 to 9.6 percent.
This is unacceptable, the discrimination in the system against men to pursue Nursing is a result of sexism, from the earliest days of schooling to the university level, men face an uphill battle, are preyed upon sexually by their professors and co-workers, and have no role models in society to look up to. Our history and social bias against men must be corrected.
Nursing is one of the largest and financially lucrative fields in America today, licensing and laws protect this field from being negatively impacted by immigrant workers, unlike construction and other fields of labor that are filled primarily by men.
Until men make up 50% of nurses in our country, we must continue to fight for our equality, the struggle continues!
Seems absurd doesn't it?
This is how absurd we should feel arguments for more women in STEM should be, especially every time the complaint of sexual discrimination is used. But this is the insane (delusional, irrational, whatever adjective works for you) state our society and politics seems to exist today.
Lets try to view this not in terms of race. I would argue that today opportunity for any race (other than Asians who are discriminated against in a variety of ways) is more than balanced by higher education entry efforts, EOE laws and government oversights, and by prevailing social ideologies in general.
There are all sorts of racists out there, but the government and the social norms of society today are anything but.
With that aside, I would say "Freedoms, Liberty, and the Constitution" are under attack, not by Conservative politics but by Progressive ideologies.
The idea that you are free to succeed, or fail, on your own merits and efforts cannot co-exist in a Socialist state.
The idea that the best and brightest will fill a particular job or role in society cannot co-exist in an environment that demands at least 50% of all persons in that job be female (or male).
You cannot have freedom of speech, if when you speak an opinion and it is censored, de-platformed, your bank accounts shut down, and your ability to use means of gathering income, like paypal, are denied to you.
But this is what has happened to many people labeled "alt-right" or "conservative". Today that is them, tomorrow it will be me, and the day after it will be you. Today's moderate liberal is tomorrow's alt-right extremist.Well, Ken I am not going to mix in the concept of bias when deliberate choices are made, of course I am going to agree with that.
As long as men are afforded the opportunity to enter the nursing profession or STEM careers are Available to those women that want it on an equal basis with standards based upon merit that is satisfactory for me.
Race is the elephant in the room that we would all like to ignore, it is the reason why both of us having similar backgrounds see the environment through different lenses, and why Trump has attained so large a following that has an overwhelmingly Anglo base.
"I would argue that today opportunity for any race (other than Asians who are discriminated against in a variety of ways) is more than balanced by higher education entry efforts, EOE laws and government oversights, and by prevailing social ideologies in general"
I disagree with that comment on its face.
America is NOT a socialist state, that is the fear that the Right keeps beating everyone over the head with. The state does not own the primarily means of production within the American economy and is not likely to for the foreseeable future. That does not correlate with the ability to succeed or fail on ones own merits.
Progressives seek to rein in an overreaching Capitalism aspect which allow the corporate and other wealth interests to basically control and run the Government which is not true anywhere near to the same extent in European style democracies.
Having equal opportunity to compete for the titles "best and brightest" must begin at the grade school levels.
I will always support the idea that while I may not like what you say, I will not waiver in regards to your right to say it. I think that these alt-right people suck, but I must allow them to prevail if only to protect my right to free speech
I don't ignore it, but yes, our perspectives are different. You are even older than I, and when you were coming into adulthood there were serious issues... issues that are not inherent in the system or society at large today.
The days of the first black NFL QB or the first black NASA astronaut are now a generation or more behind us. But you lived them. You came up in a very biased and racist nation... one that was more than 80% Caucasian during that time.
But those times are long gone, Caucasians are the minority in the NFL, and soon will be the minority in America.
That is how you see Progressivism and how Elizabeth Warren sees it, and that is where we have common interests, though I am sure that is still somewhat surprising to you.
But I think a lot of "progressive" groups and politicians have far different views and want much more change than that. California is a good example of where Progressivism can lead, give that state a few more years and it will have more in common with a Communist nation than it will the rest of America.
That said, I believe what makes this nation strong is that the pendulum is always swinging, from Obama to Trump, from Trump to... so long as we remain a nation that allows the people to choose someone that everyone in D.C. finds offensive and deplorable... there is hope.
But with today's technology, and the willingness of Americans to do away with Nationalism, and with that the Constitution, I'm not sure how much longer that remains true.
But unfortunately that is not what is occurring.
https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopini … s_getting/
https://culttture.com/2019/paypal-takes … efamation/Ken, yes I would be disengenous to not acknowledge that changes have occurred within this area of discussion over the last few years. But there remains much that still needs to be addressed and we are not over the hump yet. But a generation relative to actual period time of abuse and contention is all too short a time to observe and come to conclusions.
We all know that possession of relative power and wealth is the real determinant over the mere count of caucasians verses people of color. When that wealth and power is more equitably spread that is when I can say progress is being made. That may take a considerably longer period of time.
Bigotry and bias is still part of the American DNA, an attitude being held over decades, centuries, is not going to be truly expunged in 40 years. So, I still have a wait and see attitude, of suspicion and caution.
With the prospect of candidate Warren attacking the source and the subsequent abuse of this advantage, it is certainly a strong reason why I support her. And, yes, your support of someone clearly in the Progressive camp remains astonishing for me.
I am not as pessimistic about California's future, if it wasn't for the cost living, it would be more than acceptable place to live over even my current residency here in Florida. As goes California, so goes the nation.
But, now the pendulum needs to swing back!
It is debatable as to which direction the denigration of the Constitution comes.
You and Wilderness are good about relying on statistics to support your points, can you rely on statistic that support information contrary to your views? I wonder.
What statistics explain the net worth of white families being TEN times the wealth of the average black family? How is that possible in an equal opportunity based system, as all the race issues have been resolved according to you. How can that kind of disparity of wealth be so widespread consistently spread among us all living in the same country?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won … nd-whites/
Is it really coincidence? All of you can't all be that smart. I am more concerned about these statistics and the reasons over who the first black quarterback or even POTUS.
I consider myself a liberal on many fronts. To me, that means having freedoms to choose. I also thoroughly believe in family values and marriage..just celebrated my 20th anniversary. I've worked my entire life and am a patriotic Army NG veteran. I think the issue, once again, is the generalizations and how exactly we define "progressive liberalism."
Divorce rates by state don't look so well for "conservatives": https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/10- … rates.html
Add to this that the current Republican President has five kids from three marriages, and it seems he cheated on his current wife while she was pregnant...and um..I don't get it.
Carry on though, and ignore my keen incite. That solidifies my position even further.
I recognize that the W.Post is a very biased, muckraking, progressive, print. They work hard at taking a fact, or a quote, and turning it 180 degrees from its intent or truth.
So I went to their sources of information and this is what I found:
"Newly released data from the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) show that wealth rose for families in all race and ethnicity groups between 2013 and 2016. "
"The long-standing and substantial wealth disparities between families of different racial and ethnic groups, however, have changed little in the past few years."
So lets keep in mind what their article is based on. First, it is based on data collected during the years where the Obama Administration had been granted years to make an impact.
These numbers are not inclusive of the increased economic activity, higher employment, and wage growth we have seen during the Trump Administration.
Second, while they say the divide between racial groups has remained constant, all groups have improved their situation during that time.
"The number with zero or negative net worth (having debts that exceed assets) varies by race/ethnicity. Nearly one in five black households has zero or negative net worth. The share of white households without any wealth is considerably smaller, at 9 percent. Hispanic and other households fall somewhere in between white and black families on this measure."
So lets consider this in terms of actual numbers.
27 million AA divided by five = 5.4 million AA worth $0 or less.
9% of 246 million Caucasians = 22 million Caucasians worth $0 or less.
There are a heck of a lot more Caucasians worth nothing than African Americans. And I would suspect, as the EOE laws, benefits of college scholarships, and other race orientated benefits continue in the years ahead, the percentages will continue to improve for African Americans.
I would say going forward, and this is just a loosely supported opinion, that the biggest harm to African Americans becoming wealthy in the future will have more to do with the welfare state, and generations of AA who have grown up in "broken" households and without father figures.
Our current laws, social norms and perspectives will have nothing to do with African Americans failing, I would argue today's environment sets them up for success as well or better than any other race. But it is hard for any child to succeed when coming from a fatherless home and when growing up in an impoverished neighborhood.
It will be hard to undo generations of 'learning' that essentially scorned the family nucleus, where the state became the 'bread winner and father figure'.
African Americans make up the largest majority of welfare recipients. African Americans make up 40% of welfare recipients while Caucasians make up 16%.
42% of the black population was "on welfare" (as defined by being a participant in one or more means-tested assistance programs) in an average month in 2012 or 49% if you define it as being a participant at least once during the calendar year.
This issue could easily tie into the debate we have had here and elsewhere regarding Illegal Immigration and the millions of construction related jobs they fill.
The absence of those immigrant workers would force corporations into hiring Americans to fill those jobs, which would mean higher wages, better benefits, and a pathway for African Americans to find upward mobility.
If there is any class or race of people that should be against allowing Illegal Immigration or the hiring of illegal immigrants, it is the African American community.
The Washington Post … as big a muckraking rag trying to pit Americans against one another as exists in the country today.
I probably not get involved into these political descussions because they all end up in a visious circle and fruitless results in the end, no matter left or right.
Most enjoy coming closer or finding solution where it's rarely a solid aim anymore. My daughter is a millennial and I taught her like my Dad taught me self reliance and diversity to thrive not to suffer surviving all the time like most.
Boomers are the last of the trickle down money left. If most people are begging the Government for solution, sorry to say your screwed.The question is whether a solution is needed (vs desired) or whether the kids today simply don't want to start at the bottom.
When I left home I had a roommate, a wire reel for a coffee table, wooden crates for shelving, no closet and nowhere to set a plate but my lap. This kind of thing is simply unacceptable to kids today; they require a fully furnished, large, apartment with air conditioning, cable TV, internet, a nice car and no roommate...because they grew up with all that and don't recognize that it takes years to accumulate what their parents gave them.
I understand you Gus. In our generation, we couldn't wait to get out of our parents' house once we became adults- some at 18 & others at 21. We wanted to make our way-we started from the bottom up. Many in the millennial generation want to be coasted along. Many live with their parents because they are fearful of making it on their own w/the deprivations involved. Also millennials had parents who make it lovely to live at home. Boomers had parents who DIDN'T make it lovely to live at home.
Boomers had parents who were mostly the GI generation. That generation was blood & guts. They didn't tolerate any nonsense. They ran a tight ship. Millennial's parents were more lenient-Millennial parents were mostly Boomers who refuse to repeat how THEY were raised. Gus, there is a great book on the subject at head-GENERATIONS, THE HISTORY OF AMERICA'S FUTURE, 1584 to 2069 by William Strauss & Neil Howe.Thanks for the book suggestion Grace, I will check it out.
GA
Millennials are getting a bad rap. Every generation since long before I was born (including mine - gen X) gets hit with the 'stupid, ungrateful kids' stick. But I swear, no generation has been so bashed as this one - probably because of Trump & Co's 'no PC' bs. They are bullied and condemned for their 'new' ideas at every turn.
Kids and young peeps are not blind... they are surrounded by the glaring things in life that they see as 'needing to be fixed'. Such as, healthcare, addictions, homelessness, the outrageous costs of going to college, and hate speech directed at them by judgmental grown ups who should know better, etc.
Really, can we blame anything else on them? Its not like they have 'gotten their way' and the US operates as a Socialist government now because of them. To take a line from Billy Joel, 'They didn't start the fire' - but they sure a hell feel it probably more than any generation before them has.
It seems to me that most anti-millentials wish these kids would just sit down, shut up and remain uninterested in things like politics and activism like every generation before them. Damn 'woke' kids taking an interest in their own lives and the future of their countries and this planet, LoL!
FYI, because they want things that look 'socialist' to you - doesn't necessarily mean that is how things have to go. Currently, there are still plenty former people from previous generations left to mentor, work with and temper their overly-idealistic, innovative ideas.
Meaning, this is the United States... We are perfectly capable of creating NEW & UNIQUE policies for this country that are neither overly-socialistic nor overly-capitalistic; but yet address both their concerns and the concerns of the opposing groups.
That doesn't happen because everyone is too busy fighting over extreme ideals. Much more cooperation is needed and far less pompous pandering. Nothing needs to be completely free, but it doesn't have to be so hard to achieve, either - it never used to be.
And frankly, if this country wasn't so damned divided - it wouldn't be.
These young people were angry before Trump and his supporters - as demonstrated by the popularity of Bernie Sanders pre-Trump. And now they are angrier than ever - with so many MORE of them taking activist roles, running for office and touting their socialist agendas.
Its a perfect example of Law of Attraction... push against something, get more of it. If you're smart, you'll start working WITH them instead of against them - or by the time you're all on your death beds, you'll be crying over your 'socialist' country. They're actually pretty damn brilliant for the most part. They just need opportunities to dovetail some of their brilliance into more reasonable, productive and LESS partisan ideals.
I've had a lot of experiences with Millennials. I always tell my fellow baby boomers, if we grew up with this technology and in this environment, would we be any different? Probably not. The world changes, not is ways you may like, but it will change. I and a friend hold a wilderness survival course at a local college. There is a one day and a weekend over night course we offer. We take them to a place that is a dead zone, so their cell phones won't work. That is a deal breaker for many of them, but many others are up for the experience. I like the expression of awe when we show them about wild edibles, how to start a fire, etc. I think when these kids are separated from their electronics, they're pretty great kids. Some of them need to be put in line at times, but that has happened for the entire decade we've been doing this survival course. If I want further inspiration I just go to a meeting of the Young Republicans to make me feel good about the future.
Let's define personal responsibility from a Libertarian point of view.
1. Every person must build their own roads. They cannot rely on any form of government to build roads. They must build their own homes, and take responsibility for inventing math, rediscover history, etc. It's all about doing it yourself - about being personally responsible. Community assistance to work together collectively is not an option.
2. Anyone else who wants to use your roads has to pay you a toll. If you don't have the skills to build your own house, that's your own personal responsibility. It's your fault.
3. Anyone who wants to learn to read and write when you are a child must have parents who are willing to pay for you to learn to read and write. If your parents can't afford to pay, then, tough, Forget the fact that you have no capacity to pay at 6 years old. You'll just remain illiterate and ignorant. No jobs for you in the future.
4. People must pay for their own medical care. It doesn't matter if it your insurance refuses to pay because the co ost is upwards $1 million. Certainly sell your house, your car, and live in the street. Nworries. In America, most people go bankrupt because of medical costs. It's all about personal responsibility. One has to be personally responsible for all the crap in life that hits you.
Bottom line is that it's a stupid argument. The people who resent 'government hand-outs' do do for the following reasons.
1. They lack a genersoity of spirit towards others.
2. They are in the fortunate position of currently being king of the castle. They think that this is their own doing. They don't realize how much luck has to do with it. They enjoy their feeling of superiority. Generally when people like to feel superior, it's because they have little significance and they feel inferior at a deep inner level. These people have also not suffered enough. When they reach a point where everything that the do failes, they generally change their minds. Or they take guns and shoot everybody...
3. They don't understand that government is essential in order to remain civilized. Human beings become feral without a system to keep them in shape. It's easy for human beings to descend to barbarism. All it takes is an intense struggle for survival, and they lose all their inhibitions. Government is there to make things easier and to prevent carnage. By educating people (gratis), ignorance is eradicated and people like Trump and Boris can't be elected to power. By providing inexpensive or free medical care, people don't become displaced through homelessness.
It's not about personal responsibiity vs the government taking care of you. It's about living in a decent country where one is given the tools to look after oneself, and when those tools become inadequate, the government steps in to give you more tools.
That system worked well in the 50s and 60s. Thatcher and Reagan removed it by introducing dog-eat-dog capitalism.
Related Discussions
- 23
Do people use God as an excuse to not take personal responsibility for
by janesix 12 years ago
thier actions?
- 1737
Why Should The Wealthy Be Forced To Support The Poor?
by HuntersWhitt 11 years ago
We've been having a really great discussion on tax rates today, and I've been noticing an underlying theme throughout the thread, so I'll just ask the "tough question" directly. This question has three parts:A) Should the wealthy have to pay a larger percentage in taxes in order to...
- 42
Divided America: The Battle for Core Values and Who Will Prevail
by Sharlee 3 weeks ago
Americans have become deeply divided over a combination of political, cultural, and social factors that have been escalating for decades. The truth is, political polarization has intensified significantly over the last 40 years. The two major parties have moved further apart ideologically, with...
- 21
If YOU were wealthy, would YOU FINANCIALLY support your children in adulthood o
by Grace Marguerite Williams 11 years ago
If YOU were wealthy, would YOU FINANCIALLY support your children in adulthood orencourage THEM to make THEIR own way in life?
- 57
The Documentary "Uncle Tom" and Black Conservatives
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
This is worth watching. It shows the experience of black conservatives in the United States. It is very powerful. I challenge everyone to click on the link I've provided and watch the movie's trailer."The film simply asks: “Why is there no respectful disagreement in the black...
- 27
Is a college degree a measure of intelligence?
by PaulStaley1 8 years ago
Is a college degree a measure of intelligence?I don't have a degree. Because of that I think I have a chip on my shoulder. I see so many people out there with degrees that are just plain morons. I think, nowadays more then ever, it is more about money, and showing your...