Re: Old farts and today's youth (Re: David Harvey's anomie
In a message dated 98-05-02 00:24:00 EDT, you write: << It seems rather unfair to tar students in any generic sense with a brush >> i did not talk about students in general -- i spoke about my 30 or so students. i never said they were representative -- it is you taking my particular and making generalized statements. next -- i think if you examine it, most students in higher education (note, please the most not the all) are, on average, better off than those young people the same age who can not afford college at all. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Old farts and today's youth (Re: David Harvey's anomie
In a message dated 98-05-01 19:57:54 EDT, you write: << .. >With the lack of sympathy by folks on this list for their economic straits, >people should not be surprised that young people may occasionally lack sympathy >for other folks economic problems (as Maggie found in her classes). >> I don't disagree that university students face financial difficulties and uncertain job futures -- but some of my students wear designer outfits which cost more than my entire wardrobe, and I did an informal survey which found that their parents' incomes were all more than $100,000 a year. Now, this does not mean that they won't have trouble finding decent jobs or paying back student loans, but to compare their financial straits with single women earning less than $7500 a year is rather absurd ( at least I think it's absurd, but maybe you agree with my students that these women are all promiscuous and undeserving. After all, one baby maybe, but two, how could you??? of course, these are all immaculate conceptions ) maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Old farts and today's youth (Re: David Harvey's anomie
-Original Message- From: MScoleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In a message dated 98-05-01 19:57:54 EDT, you write: << .. >With the lack of sympathy by folks on this list for their economic straits, >people should not be surprised that young people may occasionally lack sympathy >for other folks economic problems (as Maggie found in her classes). >> -I don't disagree that university students face financial difficulties and -uncertain job futures -- but some of my students wear designer outfits which -cost more than my entire wardrobe, and I did an informal survey which found -that their parents' incomes were all more than $100,000 a year. If their family incomes are that high, they are hardly representative of today's youth, but only of the rich. It seems rather unfair to tar students in any generic sense with a brush without carefully qualifying that you are talking about the richest couple of percent of them. It is that casual, anecdotal dismissal of my generation and younger that really irritates me. It was the "counter culture" boomer generation that voted overwhelmingly for Ronald Reagan and even for George Bush. Younger voters and older voters have both been trending much more progressive than the baby boom generation. --Nathan Newman
Re: Old farts and today's youth (Re: David Harvey's anomie
On Fri, May 1, 1998 at 10:32:58 (-0700) Nathan Newman writes: >... >What is it with the youth of today? >They just aren't as patriotic/progressive/hard-working/fill-in-the-blank as we >were at their age. > >Frankly, this sort of global analysis of a generation is offensive and most of >you would have denounced your parents (and many of you did) when variations on >the same statements were made. I provided no "analysis" of local or global sort. If you want to disagree, try not to invent things and attribute them to me. >... >With the lack of sympathy by folks on this list for their economic straits, >people should not be surprised that young people may occasionally lack sympathy >for other folks economic problems (as Maggie found in her classes). If this is inferred from my post, it is a blatant non-sequitur. I do in fact sympathize with the situation students are in, and am not surprised one bit by the poll numbers. And, yes, polls can be useful, and contrary to what Wojtek claims, they are not necessarily "an exercise in selecting different canned phrases" nor is the simplistic claim true that they "usually reflect nothing more than the saturation of the 'public mind' by media propaganda". Without further evidence, I am unwilling to condemn this poll in particular, though it may very well be a flawed poll. Just as with anything else, care is necessary in evaluating the usefulness of a particular poll. In the light spirit of Doug's original post, I gave an anecdotal offering that claimed no particular rigor. Bill
Old farts and today's youth (Re: David Harvey's anomie
-Original Message-
From: William S. Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, May 01, 1998 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: David Harvey's anomie
On Wed, April 29, 1998 at 19:44:11 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes:
>I heard on Pacifica just yesterday the results of a poll which
>indicated that the things college students worry about most are
>something like 28% not getting a good job; 11% not having enough
>money; 6% were concerned about another aspect of work --- can't
>remember exactly what; and 3% were most worried about the environment.
>So, they do give a fuck. About half worried about how well they will
>do playing in the capitalist shit-pit, and 3% are worried about the
>rising tide of shit spilling all over the world. Their scatological
>sophistication is quite impressive...
What is it with the youth of today?
They just aren't as patriotic/progressive/hard-working/fill-in-the-blank as we
were at their age.
Frankly, this sort of global analysis of a generation is offensive and most of
you would have denounced your parents (and many of you did) when variations on
the same statements were made.
Attitudes reflect a culture, but degrees of personal materialism might, on a
list with a large number of economic materialists, be examined in light of
economic production.
What is fascinating and revealing is that despite all the odes to the glorious
economy and how well college-educated folks are doing (even if a few unskilled
folks may be facing a hard time), a large number of college students are quite
worried about their economic futures. With education debt burdens, this just
adds to the anxiety.
Now, while THE GRADUATE was no doubt idealized, many in the boomer generation
identified with its protagonist, awash with free time after graduation,
unencumbered by debt, open to innumerable options ("plastics"), with the freedom
to choose wild irresponsible choices in defiance of convention.
I doubt many in the Gen X and under generation would see much at all to identify
with in the movie, since the materialist base of the economy has changed quite
radically. A revealing economic figure is that back in the early 1970s, a
typical person in their early 20s made 80% of the average wage; by the early
1990s, they were making only 60% of the average wage.
There has been an increasing income stratification in society but there has also
been an increasing age stratification as well, with older workers making much
more compared to younger workers than they did a generation ago. Unionization
rates for people in their 20s is roughly 7%, almost half the national average
and almost one-third of the rate for workers in their 40s and 50s. Young people
pay much higher taxes than they did a generation ago because of increases in
social security.
So you have students graduating with large debt burdens, smaller salaries, no
protection on the job, and higher taxes compared to a generation ago.
With the lack of sympathy by folks on this list for their economic straits,
people should not be surprised that young people may occasionally lack sympathy
for other folks economic problems (as Maggie found in her classes).
--Nathan Newman
