Disaffected Youth

[DoveAlexa]

That is sort of why I am hesitant to fall back to Uni, because, I had a good job. I have 5 years of experience working for a great company, which has some major pull, but I am afraid of that employment gap.

Outsourcing has equalized the job market to some extent in the world. There are a lot of people in other countries that work their ass off for scraps, and we are surprised when our jobs get eaten up overseas. We are spoiled in a lot of countries, and that era seems to be ending with globalization.

I think a lot of this boils down to overpopulation, too many people, not enough jobs.

But why have jobs in the first place? Because the majority of the world's resources are in the hands of a few and they won't readily hand it out without a trade. A lot of us just don't have anything to trade.

Jobs provide us with stuff to trade, and if you are the person with the most resources, and you tweak your supply just right, you can make it so those that don't have anything to trade have to work their entire lives just to have a bit to trade. Ensure your status by guarding your resources against those whom have none.

If you are REALLY good, make people obsessed with trading what you supply, and make them think it is their idea. Bask in their love for it.

This is so sad and so true .
I wanna learn how to scam people out of their money in the "legitimate" way.
If you can't beat em, join them.

 

[NeverAmI]

This is so sad and so true .
I wanna learn how to scam people out of their money in the "legitimate" way.
If you can't beat em, join them.

Just set up some 'free' public wifi, put a packet sniffer on the line and collect all their non-SSL encrypted passwords and steal some identities.

I have thought about a society that knew human nature well enough to say "OK, we know there are certain people motivated by x, some motivated by y, and on and on for the various different motivations. Set up something that caters to those needs (nurturing, collecting resources, competition, etc) basically just keeping people occupied, but try to figure out some way those roles could help benefit society as well. Make it easy (but not too easy) to switch between roles. If those kept people satisfied, then resource allocation wouldn't be such a big deal.

I wonder if that would ever be possible...

Of course, I think the hardest motivator to satisfy is unique individuality, but there could be plenty of room for allowing that, but envy still comes into play. Set resource allocation, or at least heavily controlled, makes things difficult too. It would have to have some way to keep the state integrated with the public to an extent that has more safeguards, or is less prone to corruption, than what communism and democracy are. Then again, we don't actually have democracy in the US, there are a few companies that are fully democratic, which I find very interesting. Of course, they are small, I don't know how well their model would work for a large company when Joe doesn't know Steve and so they don't worry much about each others' concerns, whereas you are staring at each other from across the table in a small company.

I guess the idea would be to cater to every desire of human nature, but the real question is whether that would truly ever be attainable.

Utopia by Thomas More touched on such a society, but it was so idealistic it made me laugh, but at times it had some good insights. Everyone was happy to oblige to be the same as everyone else. One giant gray mass, who would be happy with that? Wearing the exact same clothes, eating the exact same food, living the exact same life. That clearly isn't enough.

 

[DoveAlexa]

Heh, I said legitimate , identity theft isn't that. I was thinking more like making a product, or providing a service cheap and then convincing everyone that they have to have it.
Like that whole pet-rock phenomenon.

 

[NeverAmI]

Heh, I said legitimate , identity theft isn't that. I was thinking more like making a product, or providing a service cheap and then convincing everyone that they have to have it.
Like that whole pet-rock phenomenon.

Oh come on! It's only 1 word!

 

[Lumi Spitsbergen]

Here is what I firmly believe:
A real man is a guy who has dredged up the capability within himself to devote himself passionately (or at least be committed) to something in life other than himself or a girl.

Whether it be a career, religion, mode of expression, etc.
Different guys hit this at different stages.
Not all men devote themselves to things I consider worthwhile, but to be a man he has to at least have something in his life he can devote himself to on a long-term basis.
Besides, again, himself or a girl (his own "enjoyment" counts as himself).

I have a pretty hard n' fast rule for dating guys: I only date guys who either have this, or look like they have the firm beginnings of this. A guy needs to have his own "thing" going on in his life.

Now, don't get me wrong. We women don't get to laze around and just not think for ourselves. I think that all girls/women need to have their own "thing" going on in their lives as well, I'm just not sure this is the catalyst that propels us into true adulthood in the same way it seems to be for men.

 

[DoveAlexa]

Here is what I firmly believe:
A real man is a guy who has dredged up the capability within himself to devote himself passionately (or at least be committed) to something in life other than himself or a girl.

Whether it be a career, religion, mode of expression, etc.
Different guys hit this at different stages.
Not all men devote themselves to things I consider worthwhile, but to be a man he has to at least have something in his life he can devote himself to on a long-term basis.
Besides, again, himself or a girl (his own "enjoyment" counts as himself).

I have a pretty hard n' fast rule for dating guys: I only date guys who either have this, or look like they have the firm beginnings of this. A guy needs to have his own "thing" going on in his life.

Now, don't get me wrong. We women don't get to laze around and just not think for ourselves. I think that all girls/women need to have their own "thing" going on in their lives as well, I'm just not sure this is the catalyst that propels us into true adulthood in the same way it seems to be for men.

I can't really think of anything thats "all about *not* yourself" since the ones who do those true things are usually not available to date. They are Buddhist monks and celibate priests and nuns for women. If you are volunteering, you're still doing it for yourself. Whats wrong with doing you best in your job, your hobbies, and for your mate?

BUT BACK ON TOPIC:
Some would say we are more hand-held than ever, this generation. Though I seem to be finding men of all ages having trouble with Today. Sure we have the spoiled kiddies who've never had to do anything for themselves, but we still have many kids who leave home after highschool, tough out through uni and working at the same time, and they both end up in the same place.
That really should make you angry. I see more people just "giving up", thinking that whatever challenges they have to surmount to get anywhere at all, just aren't worth it. Who wants to live at work like the big-wig office worker people do once they get the "dream career", with all the stress and resulting health trouble, with no lives of their own and if they have family, that family likely has nothing to do with them.
The dream has gone to shit. Though no one is letting us make a new one.

The worst thing we've still clung to over the decades is the "working like mad till you retire then pray you can afford it". Firstly, why do we have to overwork just to be able to live comfortable at our most infirm state? Can't we work less and enjoy ourselves while we still have teeth? Can't we take long stretches off working, having saved money, and just live a bit? A retirement every 5 years maybe? In this work world, we are told that we must be working all the time, and that if you aren't working you must be unemployable. If there is a gap in your work history you better have a health excuse else no one will want you. We are also living longer than ever, so retiring at 65 doesn't just last a few years, it last till you maybe hit 80, 90 or 100! You have to somehow make enough money to survive several decades without, and no wonder most people can't make it anymore.

 

[Lumi Spitsbergen]

I can't really think of anything thats "all about *not* yourself" since the ones who do those true things are usually not available to date. They are Buddhist monks and celibate priests and nuns for women. If you are volunteering, you're still doing it for yourself. Whats wrong with doing you best in your job, your hobbies, and for your mate?

Either I failed to to present what I said correctly, or you took it way out of context (probably a bit of both).

I didn't say anything had to be 'all about *not* yourself' (in fact, I'm a bit confused why you put that in quotations, as those were all your own words).


What I meant was that ideally a person should devote themselves to some idea/career/thing because they have found meaning in the pursuit of it within themselves.
I said "besides himself or a girl" because I have encountered a lot of fellas who simply study, but don't actually care about it. They just "do it" because someone told them they should, and probably either won't go very far in it because they are (for lack of a better word) uninspired by it, or they will do something else later in life when they have found something to push themselves in.

How on earth you got celibacy from all this is something you will have to reconcile with your own psyche.

 

[toska]

I can only talk about the US since that is where I live, but yes I think there is an increase in feelings like this among young adults. I would say the biggest problem is our bullshit public edumakashunal system. It's failing a lot of people and wasting their time during a crucial period in their lives when their minds are most able to absorb information. My friend grew up in a bad part of Baltimore and I'm helping her get her GED. She somehow made it to high school without knowing what fractions are and how to multiply and divide. She also recently tested at a 5th grade reading level...unbelievable!!! I know she has the ability to pass because she is learning really fast when her boyfriend and I sit down and tutor her. It's amazing nobody ever taught her these things.

 

[athenian200]

I'm a little upset and paranoid, but not terribly so.

My main reason for this is simple. I feel trapped in a place that I don't want to be by our economic situation. The fact that I've been unable to find a job (outside of nepotism) after high school, despite getting good grades and being told I had potential. I know it's the economy, but it affects a person to have their first experience in job hunting to be scarcity and people who are much stronger fighting for scraps. When you were told that only people who wanted a GOOD, fancy living had to fight like that, and that you could get something you could live off of if you just put some effort in... you find out that you're now expected to fight like that just for minimum wage. And I don't have it in me to fight like that for next to nothing.

If I'm upset about anything, it's that I'm going to grow up in a world much worse than the one I was prepared for, much worse than the one my parents grew up in.

For generations, the kids have always had it better than their parents. I'm going to be a member of the first generation who will be worse off, and it has nothing to do with my potential, or what I could have been in a different place and time. I'm upset because I wasn't born 20 years earlier, in a world where things were possible, and you weren't trapped so long as you were willing to work.

I'm upset... that I'm probably never going to be given a chance to realize even a glimmer of my potential. No one will ever know that I could have been a steady, reliable worker who showed up on time, and did their work correctly almost every day. I never wanted the chance to realize all of my potential, but the world I'm facing now doesn't even seem to be offering me a chance to realize 5% of it, while the world of 20 years ago would have given me 10%, maybe 20%.

The real root of this anger is fear. The fear that I won't be able to cope, and that no one out there who is able to help me out cares enough to do so. The fear that my failure will just be brushed aside with that broad brush "the economy is bad, deal with it somehow, we don't care how, just don't expect us to help."

I had low expectations to begin with. All I ever wanted was minimum wage without a fight, living in a run-down apartment... now it doesn't seem like I'll ever achieve that. Also, I'll have to live my life in a way that pleases my family, seeing as I'm going to be depending on them for a long time, and can't afford to upset them. There's no place to go. I just don't have the power to summon any other options, because the economy is a desert.

 

[DoveAlexa]

Either I failed to to present what I said correctly, or you took it way out of context (probably a bit of both).

Here is what I firmly believe:
A real man is a guy who has dredged up the capability within himself to devote himself passionately (or at least be committed) to something in life other than himself or a girl.

Whether it be a career, religion, mode of expression, etc.
Different guys hit this at different stages.
Not all men devote themselves to things I consider worthwhile, but to be a man he has to at least have something in his life he can devote himself to on a long-term basis.
Besides, again, himself or a girl (his own "enjoyment" counts as himself).

I have a pretty hard n' fast rule for dating guys: I only date guys who either have this, or look like they have the firm beginnings of this. A guy needs to have his own "thing" going on in his life.

Now, don't get me wrong. We women don't get to laze around and just not think for ourselves. I think that all girls/women need to have their own "thing" going on in their lives as well, I'm just not sure this is the catalyst that propels us into true adulthood in the same way it seems to be for men.

Alright alright, I'll try this again.

I found there to be a disconnect between someone working in a career and then you saying they should do something thats other than for themselves.
You said they weren't real men without this other selfless cause. You put careers in the list of things that weren't about themselves, but it really is, and they can devote themselves to it completely and passionately. I found it a contradiction.

Next, if you're attending to a partner in a genuine way, that counts, or should. It can certainly be selfless and not about themselves but can also benefit the guy a great deal, and thus didn't seem to meet your first requirement. That would be the "your girl" part you mentioned.

So yes, considering how busy and huge the workload on a career can be, if they are very passionate about it, and they are also passionate about their life's love and family, why would this not count them among real men?

Next, you say "(his own "enjoyment" counts as himself)" counts as himself but then "Whether it be a career, religion, mode of expression, etc." Where does this put hobbies? Woodcarving could be a mode of expression, but he's doing it for his own enjoyment.

Lastly the point on celibacy was an expansion on what could qualify a person under your points, if personal gains and enjoyment were out, and girls were out, only a monk could satisfy all of that.

But yes, we're cleared up now.

I also found it jarring that you went on about what a real man is when this thread was about all the exaggerated expectations put on them...

 

[Lumi Spitsbergen]

Alright alright, I'll try this again.

I found there to be a disconnect between someone working in a career and then you saying they should do something thats other than for themselves.
You said they weren't real men without this other selfless cause. You put careers in the list of things that weren't about themselves, but it really is, and they can devote themselves to it completely and passionately. I found it a contradiction.

Next, if you're attending to a partner in a genuine way, that counts, or should. It can certainly be selfless and not about themselves but can also benefit the guy a great deal, and thus didn't seem to meet your first requirement. That would be the "your girl" part you mentioned.

So yes, considering how busy and huge the workload on a career can be, if they are very passionate about it, and they are also passionate about their life's love and family, why would this not count them among real men?

Next, you say "(his own "enjoyment" counts as himself)" counts as himself but then "Whether it be a career, religion, mode of expression, etc." Where does this put hobbies? Woodcarving could be a mode of expression, but he's doing it for his own enjoyment.

Lastly the point on celibacy was an expansion on what could qualify a person under your points, if personal gains and enjoyment were out, and girls were out, only a monk could satisfy all of that.

But yes, we're cleared up now.

I also found it jarring that you went on about what a real man is when this thread was about all the exaggerated expectations put on them...

Really? I thought I was simplifying matters.
The fact of the matter is that in today's society guys (well, society in general) seems to place larger than life and contradictory expectations what "growing up" or "becoming a man" hinges on.
In my view it's instead very simple, and rather individualistic from person to person.
The whole idea is that while it's extremely frustrating to be young, the best thing we can do is to explore avenues that might lead us to those things we can ultimately devote ourselves to in life which - at least for the next foreseeable years. This is a process which requires us to mature in order to work and fight for it (whatever "it" may be).

Your whole tirade seems to stem from a misunderstanding of my use of the word "besides."
At no point was that supposed to be construed as "in mutual exclusion to" but rather to point out that just having a healthy id, and possible co-dependency is not enough to allow someone (but I think this may be especially true of guys - though women don't escape this either) to mature to the point of adulthood.

Attending to one's partner in a selfless way can be a good thing, but no, the simple ability to do so does not catapult one into adulthood.
By that argument all children would be adults since children are often more capable of devoting themselves whole heart-edly to another person than many adults. Co-dependents completely devote themselves to their partnerm but not only is this unhealthy to the relationship, it actually stymeis the indiviual maturity of the person who does this.

This is NOT to say that finding an emotionally mature balance with a romantic partner is not a part of growing up - I'm just saying that it is not enough to be "grown up."

 

[IndigoSensor]

I have no sympathy for people like this. They will figure it out for themselves, or they won't. The sticker is they do it to themselves, and god forbid you say that to them.

I just ignore it.

 

[NeverAmI]

This conversation made me think of something. Giving up is actually a pretty valid option these days in places like the US.

You can choose not to work, and still get by. You can live off the system, to an extent. People are no longer forced to provide for themselves, so why expect them to? Ideally, everyone will contribute more than they take, but that is never the case.

In the past (except in the very large urban centers) if you tried something like that, you died unless you had a hell of a good family to take care of you. Our society is full of spoiled, whiny brats who's daily struggle consists of choosing which lunch-meat they want in their sandwich.

Survival is never guaranteed, but it is pretty damn probable in Western Society. With someone that doesn't have anything close to such a guarantee, a lot of their time is spent seeking to ensure survival, and they are probably better off for it. Necessity mandates structure, which instills virtue.

We are stuck with a ton of people, not much to do, and really nothing but man-made conceptualizations to work towards.

Boredom is the new threat to survival.

I think a modern societal structure needs to take things like this into account.

 

[athenian200]

This conversation made me think of something. Giving up is actually a pretty valid option these days in places like the US.

You can choose not to work, and still get by. You can live off the system, to an extent. People are no longer forced to provide for themselves, so why expect them to? Ideally, everyone will contribute more than they take, but that is never the case.

In the past (except in the very large urban centers) if you tried something like that, you died unless you had a hell of a good family to take care of you. Our society is full of spoiled, whiny brats who's daily struggle consists of choosing which lunch-meat they want in their sandwich.

Survival is never guaranteed, but it is pretty damn probable in Western Society. With someone that doesn't have anything close to such a guarantee, a lot of their time is spent seeking to ensure survival, and they are probably better off for it. Necessity mandates structure, which instills virtue.

We are stuck with a ton of people, not much to do, and really nothing but man-made conceptualizations to work towards.

Boredom is the new threat to survival.

I think a modern societal structure needs to take things like this into account.

Not just anyone can get the system to take care of them. Mostly, single mothers, the disabled, the elderly, families, and minorities. And not even all of them. The reasoning for this is understandable, though it doesn't make the reality any less bleak or frightening for those who don't fall into one of those categories. Because there's no safety net if you take a chance and fail.

Quite honestly, someone like me would probably STILL be very bad off if they didn't have their family to turn to. Maybe in a large city I'd be able to sleep in a manhole and eat out of trashcans, but I don't think I'd live very long doing that. Maybe a month or two before I got sick, couldn't afford a doctor, and died of illness.

Again, now it has nothing to do with willingness to work, it's got to do with no one giving you a chance to work. If you're looking for work and can't find it, which is quite possible with 10% unemployment... you'll find yourself in poverty quickly.

I don't see what you're talking about, how giving up is an option, and people will be taken care of. I'm pretty certain that I would be left to rot in the streets if my family weren't helping me, and I couldn't provide for myself.

That stuff about being able to live on the system is just rhetoric that the conservatives use to tear down social programs backed by liberals. That would never be made possible. It couldn't be.

 

[NeverAmI]

Not just anyone can get the system to take care of them. Mostly, single mothers, the disabled, the elderly, families, and minorities. And not even all of them. The reasoning for this is understandable, though it doesn't make the reality any less bleak or frightening for those who don't fall into one of those categories. Because there's no safety net if you take a chance and fail.

Quite honestly, someone like me would probably STILL be very bad off if they didn't have their family to turn to. Maybe in a large city I'd be able to sleep in a manhole and eat out of trashcans, but I don't think I'd live very long doing that. Maybe a month or two before I got sick, couldn't afford a doctor, and died of illness.

You are saying giving up isn't ideal. I am not talking about what is ideal, I am talking about giving up on the standard notion of government and standard jobs. If you get sick, there is a good chance a hospital will take you in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

But yea, I am not that knowledgeable in politics so I can't argue a lot of specifics. My argument is more about the mindset of certain individuals. Whether that mindset is efficient, right, wrong, or ideal is illrelevant.

But now that you mention it, people have been figuring out how to survive on nothing for a long time.

Again, now it has nothing to do with willingness to work, it's got to do with no one giving you a chance to work. If you're looking for work and can't find it, which is quite possible with 10% unemployment... you'll find yourself in poverty quickly.

I don't see what you're talking about, how giving up is an option, and people will be taken care of. I'm pretty certain that I would be left to rot in the streets if my family weren't helping me, and I couldn't provide for myself.

I never said it was about being taken care of (in every sense of the phrase), I said it is about surviving.

And if there is no work, and the government doesn't give two shits about you, then why not seek to exploit the system as much as possible? I wasn't saying that you can just hand them a ticket and they will give you a house and a perfect life. I am saying things are getting to the point where people stop relying no the system altogether. I am talking giving up on society. Not that I think everyone would give up on society, they would likely revolt. But some still have that mindset, and that is what we are talking about here.

By the way, these are just some personal thoughts, I don't have a political stance on this, and if I did it wouldn't be contemporary conservativism.

 

[bamf]

Yo NAI. Whenever I get rich I'm buying a bunch of land, building a school for free thinking kids, and saying screw you to society. We can live at one with nature and all that hippie stuff, man.

Everyone is invited

 

[NeverAmI]

Yo NAI. Whenever I get rich I'm buying a bunch of land, building a school for free thinking kids, and saying screw you to society. We can live at one with nature and all that hippie stuff, man.

Everyone is invited

Yes! We can experiment with different forms of society!

 

[muir]

The sleeping giant

Many people are in the 'poverty trap' of knowing that if they get a job, they will earn less than they are paid in benefits.

The benefits are paid for by society through their taxes.

The super rich who influence political policy have various ingenious ways of avoiding paying taxes themselves.

So the super rich have created a society which gives birth to many social problems such as unemployment and they make those who are working pay to pick up the pieces, through tax and charity.

The super rich use the media to shape peoples perceptions and to obscure this from the view of the honest, hard working members of society......who are essentially a slave class, without even realising it.

Many sense it though and it makes them: sad, despondent, angry, dissilusioned, confused and frustrated.......but they can't intellectualise the source of the problem.

Finding the source of the problem is extremely easy. You just use the old maxim of journalists: 'follow the money'.

If you follow the money you find that a very small number of people are controlling the wealth and shaping society. If the people are your computer screen, the super rich are a piece of dust on that screen. If their wealth is your computer screen, then the wealth of the people is the piece of dust on it. Yet they ask the people to pay for everything and they are finding ways to squeeze the people even more: later retirement, longer working hours, dissappearing pensions, cutting welfare, lowering pay, inflation, debt, extortionate mortgages, charity etc (this is despite the fact that we now have machines, computers and robots to do much of the work; we also have both genders working and foreign labour...yet we work all the time!).

If people need to direct their justified anger somewhere then they should blame the people who are behaving as their overlords.

Most people just can't see it though.

Their perception of reality is created by the media. The media is owned by the super rich and they create the perception.

The people are like a giant. The few powerful men whisper into the ear of the giant. They tell the giant scary stories to keep it scared and they don't let the giant see the whole picture, because if it did it would see that it is being exploited.

They are robbing the giant blind and must spend a lot of their energies on confusing and distracting the giant.

Their greatest fear is that one day the giant will wake up.

Its an old story but each generation seems to forget it.

 

[DoveAlexa]

Yes! We can experiment with different forms of society!

A different one every week?
We should make a wheel and spinner system where we put forms of society on the edge of the wheel and spin each week to see what we'll try out next.

 

[dneecey]

A different one every week?
We should make a wheel and spinner system where we put forms of society on the edge of the wheel and spin each week to see what we'll try out next.

I'm so there!