@com2kid You're spot on. As a recent college graduate (at a non-traditional age: in my 30's) I saw a TON of exactly what you describe. Our peer group (not the Hacker News peer group, clearly, but the rest of the 20 to mid-30s group) is, by and large, listless. They simply don't have much drive or motivation. They're--as you put it so aptly--merely "existing."
I attribute this to changes in "higher" education. High school isn't about academics most places for most people; And college isn't either. High school for most people most places is about socializing and being a place for busy parents to send their kids for the work day. College is just a place to put off getting a job, and a place to party and continue socializing.
Their is a myth in college that "C's get degrees" and all you need is "a piece of paper." Students believe that as long as they have a degree in anything they'll be able to get a good job. So they select the easiest degree that matches their interests and abilities. Of course, not all degrees are equally as valuable to employers. And there's only so much demand for various specialties. But most students aren't familiar with the BLS statistics on which jobs are in demand now, how much they pay on average, what the jobs associated with various degrees entailed, and what the predicted outlook is for various professions. They just assume that a degree, any degree, is all they need and riches await. So they graduate to discover that numerous peers also pursued their easy "soft" degree in college, got average grades, and are now competing for the same jobs. The employers can't tell one applicant from another when they're all so average, so they just pick one and the rest go to work as waiters, taxi drivers, gas station attendants, etc.
In short: we're producing far more graduates in certain fields than the market requires; and far less in other fields than the market demands. And we can't really expect this to change until we start educating students in high school and college about how many jobs are available in various fields, and what they pay. We need to also work to defeat the myth that everyone "needs" a college education and that all you need is a degree, any degree, to get a good job. Some people aren't cut out for college and would be happier earning great money as an electrician, or machinist, mechanic, plumber, etc. And those who are a good fit for college would be more effective if they selected more quantitative degrees which match their interests and abilities. In other words, those who do college should not look at it as a time to put off going to work, or a time to party--they should look at it as the few precious years they have to prepare themselves as best they can to get a good job...take the hardest classes they can, expand their horizons, and distinguish themselves from their peers (do undergraduate research, do more than required, get better grades than required, diversify, etc.).
The other element is that our peer group plays the victim a lot. They don't own their own lives, happiness, or success. Granted, this is a broad statement, but many of them really place the blame for things on others. They blame someone else (the government, evil corporations, etc) for their lack of a job. They blame others for their inability to follow their dreams or carry out big aspirations (like your friend).
The truth is that for all of us, we need to take responsibility for making our lives what we want them to be. We can't blame others for not telling us how worthless a Film & TV degree is, or for not giving us a great job, or for not supporting our brilliant venture.
In short, I've blathered on at length when your post did an excellent job of succinctly saying the same thing. Thank you for your comment.
Shouldn't it be the other way around in an ideal world?
Why has the economy been created in the first place? As an end in itself? Or was it to make life easier for everybody?
In my opinion, if the system fails to enable a fullfilled life for the majority of the people, the system needs to be changed.
It's easy to say people should not acquire worthless Film & TV degrees, when you yourself have a C.S. degree, only because computers have been your passion since the age of 8.
I would not want to spend the majority of my precious time on earth with something I do not like to do. And of course I think other people shouldn't either.
> I would not want to spend the majority of my precious time on earth with something I do not like to do. And of course I think other people shouldn't either.
The world does not exist to provide you with enjoyment. If you can make a living doing what you love to do, like many of us here, that's a fantastic added bonus but realize -- it isn't the nature of life to be able to do what you enjoy 24/7 (or 8/5). This is why we have hobbies and relationships and recreation.
The expectation that life will be working 9-5 at a job you love then coming home to a dream version of your domicile of choice and a wonderful spouse/partner/dog/cat and spending your evenings drinking tea/coffee/wine/beer/whiskey debating politics/technology/art/music/literature while gazing over a picturesque sunset/oceanscape/bikini model/forest and sighing gently over how great everything turned out -- that expectation destroys happiness. Life plays out roughly according to the choices you make and is colored by luck. You can change your level of fulfillment by adjusting your expectations or working harder/differently or both. This might sound a little eastern, but what I think we need is a dose of gratitude. You're (probably) alive, (possibly) healthy, (presumably) not living on the street, (hypothetically) employed, (likely) have one or more people in your life who love you... be grateful. I expect this point to be misunderstood, but note for the record this is not the "things could be worse!" argument. It's exactly the opposite argument: "look how good things already are!".
So you work a job that isn't exhilarating? So what. Your job isn't your life, your life is your life.
> The world does not exist to provide you with enjoyment.
Why not?
Why does the world exist in your opinion?
In my opinion there is no reason, at least none of which we are able to understand.
So why not make the best out of our time here?
An enjoyable working place is especially important, because this is where we spend most of our time.
> If you can make a living doing what you love to do, like many of us here, that's a fantastic added bonus but realize -- it isn't the nature of life to be able to do what you enjoy 24/7 (or 8/5).
Demanding this from others is one thing, doing this yourself is another one.
There were multiple stages in my life where I had to do work that I did not see a sense in and they always made me depressed and I didn't really do a good job at them even though I tried really hard.
Now I do what I love and I am really good at it. That this is computer science (something that is considered valuable at this specific place in time) is a complete coincidence.
The degree of is/ought fallacy and outright naivete in your statements is truly astonishing.
> "Why do people have to adjust to the economy?
Shouldn't it be the other way around in an ideal world?"
As Darwin said, "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change." This has been and still is a basic truth of the world. Creatures that expect (much less demand) their environment or others to adapt to them always suffer. That's not to say that all suffering has its root here, but the economy was never "created" to do anything, especially make life easier for everybody. Economic forces emerge naturally from basic human interactions, and there is no single authority who can tweak the knobs on "the system" to change it for the betterment of everyone.
> "I would not want to spend the majority of my precious time on earth with something I do not like to do. And of course I think other people shouldn't either."
This is precisely the attitude that most older generations complain about when they belittle milennials. Many of these people worked in boring, sometimes pointless jobs to be able to pay their bills. They understood that work is called work because it is not necessarily fun. Fun is what you do when you get home from work, on your own time.
We are fortunate to live in an era where many people can find jobs that are inherently satisfying. We live in an economy that has many opportunities for creative minds and challenging problems for analytical minds. Most of these problems can be solved indoors, in an air conditioned room, without having to physically exert yourself or put yourself in any danger.
The economy will not adjust to you. The economy cares about what you have to offer it, and what you can purchase from it. It does not care what you demand from it without offering anything in return.
> Why has the economy been created in the first place? As an end in itself? Or was it to make life easier for everybody?
Economies are not created in any traditional sense (though ours is highly managed, for better or for worse).
They come into being as a natural part of human behavior.
For instance, we all place value on our time. If you ask me to do something, I will most likely ask for some form of reciprocation. Now maybe if I really like you, feeling good about helping you is payment enough itself, but there is a finite limit to that.
Even favors have an economic component to them. If you help a friend move, you reasonably expect him to help you move at some point in the future. Quid pro quo.
Our system of currency is a highly abstracted away formalization of those basic ideas.
Call providing some positive good or service "value".
You get reciprocated for providing value to others.
We use currency as a medium of exchange to represent this.
At times, it is easy to see this exchange. If you go watch a local band, you pay for a ticket, a portion of that ticket goes to the venue for providing you with a quality place to watch a performance, and part of the ticket price goes to the band for providing you with entertainment that you derived personal value from experiencing.
Other times, well, things are a bit more abstracted way. :) (And at some point it becomes arguable if value is provided at all, but that is a separate discussion!)
> It's easy to say people should not acquire worthless Film & TV degrees, when you yourself have a C.S. degree, only because computers have been your passion since the age of 8.
My argument is that people should acquire a degree that enabled them to provide value to society.
> I would not want to spend the majority of my precious time on earth with something I do not like to do. And of course I think other people shouldn't either.
The later half of the 20th century is the first time it was possible for a large number of people to have even a hope of doing work that they enjoyed.
That said, ask the people who laid your sewer pipes, built your building, pave your roads, how much they enjoy being out at 4am in the rain and snow working.
Ask those mining the rare earth minerals that are used to build our technology if they enjoy their jobs.
Middle class Americans have this romantic ideal of jobs being something someone enjoys. We are all spoiled and need to admit to that. But hey, it is a nice goal to make it so that everyone can enjoy their job right?
So here comes the funny part.
We are automating away the miserable drudge work jobs, and people are now worried.
Because it turns out the middle class fantasy of singing joys at work and coming home to a giant house with 2 (or 3 now days) cars and all that other assorted crud is not maintainable on a large scale.
I don't have a solution to this, really no one does. But we have to accept that we have made our bed and now we are going to lay down in it.
> That said, ask the people who laid your sewer pipes, built your building, pave your roads, how much they enjoy being out at 4am in the rain and snow working.
I do not think that you can compare those kinds of jobs with modern jobs.
Modern jobs require intensive training. Sometimes studying the subject for multiple years only on a theoretical basis.
This does not work if you do not like what you do, in my opinion.
I myself have tried to obtain a degree in a field that I did not like.
I failed miserably.
It eventually made me depressed, something I do not wish upon anyone.
I attribute this to changes in "higher" education. High school isn't about academics most places for most people; And college isn't either. High school for most people most places is about socializing and being a place for busy parents to send their kids for the work day. College is just a place to put off getting a job, and a place to party and continue socializing.
Their is a myth in college that "C's get degrees" and all you need is "a piece of paper." Students believe that as long as they have a degree in anything they'll be able to get a good job. So they select the easiest degree that matches their interests and abilities. Of course, not all degrees are equally as valuable to employers. And there's only so much demand for various specialties. But most students aren't familiar with the BLS statistics on which jobs are in demand now, how much they pay on average, what the jobs associated with various degrees entailed, and what the predicted outlook is for various professions. They just assume that a degree, any degree, is all they need and riches await. So they graduate to discover that numerous peers also pursued their easy "soft" degree in college, got average grades, and are now competing for the same jobs. The employers can't tell one applicant from another when they're all so average, so they just pick one and the rest go to work as waiters, taxi drivers, gas station attendants, etc.
In short: we're producing far more graduates in certain fields than the market requires; and far less in other fields than the market demands. And we can't really expect this to change until we start educating students in high school and college about how many jobs are available in various fields, and what they pay. We need to also work to defeat the myth that everyone "needs" a college education and that all you need is a degree, any degree, to get a good job. Some people aren't cut out for college and would be happier earning great money as an electrician, or machinist, mechanic, plumber, etc. And those who are a good fit for college would be more effective if they selected more quantitative degrees which match their interests and abilities. In other words, those who do college should not look at it as a time to put off going to work, or a time to party--they should look at it as the few precious years they have to prepare themselves as best they can to get a good job...take the hardest classes they can, expand their horizons, and distinguish themselves from their peers (do undergraduate research, do more than required, get better grades than required, diversify, etc.).
The other element is that our peer group plays the victim a lot. They don't own their own lives, happiness, or success. Granted, this is a broad statement, but many of them really place the blame for things on others. They blame someone else (the government, evil corporations, etc) for their lack of a job. They blame others for their inability to follow their dreams or carry out big aspirations (like your friend).
The truth is that for all of us, we need to take responsibility for making our lives what we want them to be. We can't blame others for not telling us how worthless a Film & TV degree is, or for not giving us a great job, or for not supporting our brilliant venture.
In short, I've blathered on at length when your post did an excellent job of succinctly saying the same thing. Thank you for your comment.