Go Nowhere Generation? Yeah Right.

OK so I’ve been meaning to put this into a blog for quite some time…I think the piece is almost a month old. Apologies, been pretty wrapped up in life otherwise (but I’m not complaining…seriously).

Second, I was going to link to the “story” which is actually a slideshow and is therefore pretty obnoxious and tedious. Because I want to have a point of reference, I’ll link anyway — just be warned.

Anywho, so the newsletter item actually discusses this guy’s plan to #FixYoungAmerica, apparently. But What caught my attention is the intro. Grant it, this doesn’t provide the full context of the article it first references, so hopefully I’m not attacking something without context. But I’m losing focus…so, the intro of the story (we’ll call it), notes that a recent New York Times piece (editorial perhaps?) calls twentysomethings the “go-nowhere” generation, according to calculations from Census Bureau data that finds “The likelihood of 20-somethings to move to another state has dropped well over 40 percent since the 1980s.”

Let’s start with that and then I’ll go to the latter half of the quote that I believe is from this NYT gig. There’s multiple layers that should probably be considered in a statement like the one above, especially if you’re about to call a generation something so snide  as a “go nowhere” generation. First of all, by most standard definitions a twentysomething now is a person who was born within 10 years of 1980, so I don’t see how there’s a point of comparison, using the same name (20-something). If you want to say people in their twenties, fine, but still, people in their twenties right now were born at earliest in 1982, I believe? I guess that’s a technicality.

Moving on, I don’t see how this translates into a “go nowhere” generation. While more than 40 percent is a substantial chunk and I of course I believe Census Bureau Data, the key is that they’re not likely to move to another state. That discounts their moving about within a state and it measures them at a time when they’re dead broke and therefore may not be able to do so financially. The finance issue is a big one, too. Perhaps most importantly, I believe this to be flat out wrong or somehow out of context because I’ve honestly never known so many people to move out of state. Maybe that’s just because I live in Michigan and it struggles far greater than the rest of the states do in downtimes, but a fair chunk of the people I graduated with have moved out of state…especially to Illinois in Chicago. Those that haven’t still have the desire a desire to do so, at least for a little bit, “while they’re young.” But maybe my Alma Mater with one of the largest undergraduate student populations in the country is an exception? Forgive my being facetious for just a minute there.

Another point about this statistic is that maybe they, as I suppose the NYT piece implies, just don’t want to move out of state. What’s wrong with that? Maybe they have an allegiance to where they grew up; maybe they want to be a part of it becoming prosperous and a model state; maybe they’re far more connected to their friends and families than the generation before them. If any of these or other reasons are the case, shouldn’t that be a cause for admiration or celebration, rather than labeling them “go nowhere?” I mean two words together like that usually implies something more than making a reference to the subject’s geographic location.

And here’s my reasoning on that: There’s a second half of the sentence. It states, “…According to the Pew Research Center, the proportion of young adults living at home nearly doubled between 1980 and 2008, before the Great Recession hit.”

Now I’m generally wary of a “…” anywhere, even in my own writing. It says something has been taken out, which in the case of say, sources that ramble on and on before getting to the point, isn’t a bad thing. We’re saving you the hassle. But putting together the first portion and following with this portion seems to imply that twentysomethings just want to stay home. Sure, most don’t have to pay food, rent or utilities there, so that helps, but in terms of independence, I guess I’d like to think that most young adults don’t actually want to be living with their parents — it’s done because they’d be living on the street otherwise. So maybe one day people could all thank twentysomethings and their parents for doing society such a favor as to keep the bum population down and retaining some level of economic activity from both generations.

But I digress. I believe I read (and even quoted in a previous entry) this exact same Pew Research study. The greater context to Pew’s work, as I recall, is that the statistic for twentysomethings living at home was such largely because of financial constraints. See? That’s a BIG issue. As I always say, I can’t speak for everyone in the generation…even as I typed this paragraph, I could think of a handful of “moochers” that older generations seem to think is the norm for the entire generation. And maybe I’ve been wrong this whole time and that is the case, but I’d be willing to bet that financial constraints, not the genuine desire to live off mommy and daddy, is the biggest deterrent for this generation.

Regardless, I take serious issue with any such implication. What about other generations? What are their statistics? Or are they given a free pass because they have obligations and families and other things keeping them from moving to another state while twentysomethings do not? Why is this generation being examined so much for it doesn’t do rather than what it does do? I for one have never known so many people — and perhaps parents can attest to this — that take so many chances, including moving out of state, in the name of work and the pursuit of happiness. That is to say that whether they move out of state for employment or because they find a greater happiness and self satisfaction in being in a different place, they’re moving, I swear. I’m one of the more conservative folks for my generation that has not moved out of the region….predominately because of financial constraints, but also because of wanting a closeness with the familiarity that comes with friends and family; and because there is maybe one other region in the nation that I feel confident I could continue to be happy in. Ask around and you might find the same too.

Changing Opinions on Gay Marriage

I tossed and turned on whether to include this topic in my blog, truthfully, considering it’s supposed to be about the millenial/twentysomething generation and not so much of my personal views or opinions. But then again, what’s a blog if it doesn’t have a particular angle to it, even if that’s an editorialized version of the actual news?

Well, here it is, because it’s been a hot topic for a few weeks as of late. For starters, those that follow this or even look back a few entries, will notice I kind of touched on this topic nearly a month ago. Wow it’s been that long? Apologies. Anywho, for the record, the same-sex wedding ceremony (since it’s not legally recognized here) I went to was incredible. It was no different than any opposite-sex weddings I’ve been to…there were dances with dads, the first dance, the bridal party dance, removing the garter, throwing the bouquet and all that traditional stuff. And I was actually impressed by the number of people that showed up, even if only for a short time. It was a beautiful thing to be in a place where no one judged the couple or what they were doing, but simply celebrated it. Even if it was only for a few hours, I consider it a privilege to have been a part of something that kind of gave a glimpse into the future of what the world could be like.

I’ve always considered myself a pretty tolerant person. I respect the views and opinions of others, even on this issue, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. People have a right to an opinon. But I also believe that, by the power invested in the Constitution, people have a right to equality, free of any kind of suppression that may be inflicted upon minorities from the majority. And that’s what I’ve always said this issue is about. It’s long been called the civil rights issue of this time and I don’t disagree with that. As another friend pointed out to me, yes, there may be some differences in sociological aspects, but the principle is still the same, I think.

But the crazy thing is the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, a project by the Pew Research Center, recently released a study that shows that the belief that same sex couples should have the right to be married is improving in nearly all demographics. It has great graphics for those that don’t like to read too much jargon, so be sure to check it out. It’s pretty brief too.

For the most part, not surprisingly, millenials are largely in support of the right of same-sex couples to be married. The study starts by pointing out the vast decrease in opposition since 2001, at which time about 57 percent opposed the notion while 35 percent supported it. Today it’s nearly a dead heat, with 47 percent in favor of legal same-sex marriages and 43 percent opposed. That’s pretty huge, but consider that the metrics show a sharp decline in opposition, which, as I was told in a statistics class, doesn’t necessarily mean that many people are in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. It can be assumed that that’s currently their view — to legalize gay marriage — but only the latter statistic indicates that while the first measures opposition. Just a side note.

Pew says this is largely due to generational change (I guess that’s finally a compliment?). Nearly 63 percent of millenials — which it defines as those born in 1981 or later — support legalizing same-sex marriage. Not surprisingly, the numbers decrease in Generation X (1965-1980), the Baby Boomers (1946-1964) and the Silent Generation (1928 to 1945). By the way…the silent generation? Kind of curious where that name came from. If you have any insight, feel free to comment.

Also unsurprisingly, of those that do not affiliate themselves with a particular religion, “a solid majority have supported same-sex marriage since 2001.” Going from 61 percent then to 77 percent now, apparently.

What’s surprising to me is Catholics, who seem to be at the center of this debate, really. In 2001, 40 percent favored same-sex marriages. That has only increased to 46 percent in 2012, despite support shooting up to 53 percent in 2011 — the highest mark since collecting the data. I’m going to hope this data was collected at the same time every year to account for any possible margin of error there, too. But down 10 percent hardly 6 months into 2012? That’s pretty drastic. White evangelical protestants dropped from 20 percent in 2009 to 14 percent currently as well. White mainline protestants, however, shot up from 36 percent in favor in 2009 to 54 percent in 2011. They’ve come down a bit since then, but not nearly as much as Catholics.

Why is that, I wonder? The current President of the United States was elected in 2008, sworn in 2009. He only recently “came out” on what he previously called an evolving position. For the most part, both the “unaffiliated” group and the various religious groups actually increased their support after the nation voted for the first black president. Yet between 2011 and 2012…just in time for an election…all groups except for unaffiliated and black protestants dropped in support of gay marriage, and even black protestants only increased a couple of percentage points whereas the unaffiliated have increased their support in the same time frame by 8 percent…their largest increase yet. In that respect, it almost seems as though, on the verge of deciding whether to re-elect a president who has not exactly spoke solely to the virtues of religion (nor has he against it, it should be noted), politics has something to do with it.

The show Glee, which has largely been credited with taking social issues such as this head-on, also started in 2009. It has, in my humble opinion, raised much awareness about many things from bullying to  getting through high school and just generally tackling the issue of being an outsider in various forms in the face of what seems right vs. what is right. A plethora of famous folks feel more comfortable coming out now than they ever did before, perhaps also due in part to the large rash of teen suicides and the It Gets Better project. Interesting to note…

So here we have this HUGE social and civil rights issue in front of us, and some religious groups are being asked to put their money where their mouth is. And they bail? Samesies for Republicans, who peaked their support on the matter at 27 percent last year and have since fell back to 23 percent. Perhaps more important is conservatives, who have backed down from their peak at 28 percent last year to 25 percent in 2012, while moderates have done nothing but increase their support of the issue since 2005.

Democrats, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, have gone from 56 percent in favor in 2001 to 68 percent this year, but stayed constant at 67 percent in 2010 and 2011.

The point? Politics are unfortunate here. In an election year, it seems apparent that everyone is scared about whether they’ll make it or not and have again but same-sex marriage on the back burner. Yet the statistics show this is quickly becoming a mainstream issue, so why hasn’t this nation done anything about it? North Carolina just joined more than two dozen states with a constitutional amendment that in some way — whether through marriage or financial benefits or whatever — bars same-sex couples from the same rights as their opposite-sex counterparts assume. Isn’t that discrimination? You can say this, that or whatever about how it pertains to religion, and that’s fine, but religion and politics have historically made for a nasty drink. If we never learn from our past, why bother keeping a record of it, teaching students its value and pronouncing how proud we are to have such a history all the time? Since when do we get to pick and choose who gets to be a part of our history and our society if we’re such a “melting pot” of a nation?

People, politicians especially, need to start looking to the past as a template for the future. We’ve made our mistakes but why consciously choose to make them again?

Brief Update

So for those that actually read my blog, you’ll find three posts in one day. Well I’ve been without internet at home for a couple weeks but I haven’t stopped writing. So I encourage you to keep reading, especially Thrill of the Ride. Let’s be real here, I’m going to get internet as soon as I possibly can. But I’ve also been without cable, for the most part. I get very basic channels but nothing beyond that. And for right now, I think I’m going to stick with that. I save money and realistically when I am home I should probably not be sitting in front of the TV. Maybe once I get a better TV I’ll change my mind.

But I digress. As I write this right now, I’m sitting in a rather packed coffee shop, actually. The wireless is spotty, presumably because of the overload it’s taking on right now. It’s just crazy the way we all connect. It’s even crazier to think that when I was super young, the internet was in infancy, cell phones were pretty much bricks and the biggest deal in technology – that I knew of anyway – was a tomogatchi (excuse the spelling). Video games weren’t interactive. In fact, they were cartridges that didn’t always function properly. And yet we complain about having bad service on our cell phones or not being able to access the internet on our phones now. As the twitter hashtag goes (that’s another story for another day), #firstworldproblems.

Every so often I get the urge to reconsider the Peace Corps. When we go on vacation now, it’s for material things. And I don’t disagree with that at all, but it’s fascinating, I think, that we don’t remove ourselves from the world we know, which I suppose would be more of a traditional version of a vacation. The fact that myself and most of my friends feel naked without their cell phones (or maybe it’s just me) just exposes the vulnerability of us to technology.

And yet, here I am, writing on a blog, on the world-wide-web as it were. And that’s the benefit of technology. The ability to reach others and faster communicate with those you already know. I guess that’s why we have certain standards for the people in our lives now, or I do. It used to be “e-mail me” or “call me.” Now you can call, e-mail, text, skype, tweet, facebook, blog, and so on, just to name a few.

So that’s my brief update. Hopefully be back sooner rather than later. Cheers

Evolution of Happiness

A lot has happened in the last few weeks. It’s really forced me to take a look back at every single thing that’s happened to me in the past 6 or so years and wonder what if it never happened. What if even one thing was done differently – what kind of person would I be? Would I still be here, in this place, knowing the people that I do and doing what I’m currently doing? I’ve had some people say that you would still be the same person but other outside factors would be different. I’ve known people to say that everything would be different. I’m not sure where I stand on it and I guess we’re not supposed to have a stand on it. But it really is crazy when you think about it. 

So I have this degree in journalism, background in political science, both that came from Michigan State University. What if I had gone to my other choice, Central Michigan? I know I would’ve majored in the same studies but my opportunities would be different for sure. I don’t know much about what they can offer at Central and that’s irrelevant now anyway. I never would’ve met all the people I did, that’s one thing that’s for sure. I guess you can’t figure whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing because for me that would solely be a bad thing. Well. I guess I could’ve gone without meeting some people. But then again, I’ve learned something from every single person I’ve ever met and got to know. 

I found a reference at school that I never would’ve met if I had gone to another school. I might’ve met another reference, for sure, but what would they be like? I know this reference is probably responsible for most (if not all) of the professional jobs I’ve had post-graduation, so there’s that. I know he’s the reason I got the last job I had. And the last job I had is part of the reason why I have the job I have now. And I have a good feeling that both will be reasons for whatever job might come after that.

So everyone has these thoughts, why are mine special? I guess they’re not. But I was talking to a friend today about that, mostly about them, and wondering what their life would be like if they had picked a different school than their current alma mater and never met all the people she knows now. Had she not picked that school, she very well could’ve been in Iraq. How long would she have stayed there? What would she have done there? If she came home, what would she be like? It’s just really weird to think about, I guess. And it tied in well with my situation too, so I decided to write about it.

I suppose that would make this more of a diary than a blog, so I should probably leave this entry with some wise words or something less subjective then right? I guess all I can say is, try to take some time each month (to be reasonable) and think about how far (or not far) you’ve come. Think about the choices you’ve made and the way you thought you’d be living your life now when you were you 10 or more years ago.

For me, at my current age, I thought I’d be working on building a three-year relationship (yes it had time constraints) that would lead to a marriage proposal. If I was going to have kids, it was going to be done before 30. I wanted to live in a big city where me and my spouse could have lots to do and my kids would have endless opportunities. Fast-forwarding to now, I know I still want to be married but I don’t care when it is (ok let’s be honest some time before mid 30s). I’m still unsure on having kids but that timeline certainly has to be pushed up given I don’t see myself getting into that three-year relationship any time soon. When I was a teenager, I used to think relationships weren’t for me. Now the idea isn’t so bad. I dare say I want one. Dare say…meaning I know I want to be with someone but doing something committed…meh, that has some wiggle room.

The point is the choices we make or do not make affect us every single day, whether we realize it or not. But realize it. Think about the people you’ve met, the friends you used to have and the friends you have now. Who made you happiest? What made you happiest? Are those happy people or activities still in your life and are you ok with that? Looking forward, what I want out of life has changed. The person I want to be…I’m not sure it has. But I guess that has always been an evolution of the sorts. And from one twentysomething to another, I guess that’s the point here. This is the time more than ever to decide what you want out of life and what life has given to you so far. If you’re not happy with it, find a way to be happy. And not just convenient happy or happy because you’re afraid you’re not going to find something better. It should be something you can’t get enough of. You love it and you hate it. You’re passionate about it. And the people around you that influence the choices you make should push you to get there even if it pisses you off, not push you to settle.

The Thrill of the Ride

I’ll be attending a same-sex marriage in a few weeks even though the state I live in does not technically recognize their marriage as equal to “heterosexual” marriage. Before I get started, let me just say I’m beyond excited for the wedding and the pair getting married are among the few couples I consider an inspiration. They’re pretty awesome people.

But that’s not the point of this entry. To keep this relatively anonymous (you never know), I’ll just say that one of my parents said a few things that I thought worth mentioning here. The first was the question as to HOW this pair can actually get married – the answer to which I simply said ‘I don’t know.’ And I don’t, but I’ve never seen a reason to question it. Two people are in love, so much so that they can’t go a day without being the other’s life. I’m happy for that…if you’ve been reading, you know to what lengths I’ve spoke of a post-divorce generation. The second question bothered me a bit more – why bother then?

This same parent has spoke about how it may be for the better that person x, y or z never got the chance to go to a competition for sport a, b or c. As to the why bother with the marriage, I politely disregarded the question before I went off, namely because I already had the multiple times it came up for sporting events.

I guess I was kind of blown away by the mentality. Why bother entering the race if you can’t win it? Why bother getting married if it won’t be officially recognized? Why try to achieve a goal if it’s going to be difficult?

For me, that answer is simple: To feel alive. I understand that maybe a parenting mentality came in to play here – better safe than sorry kind of deal. But I can’t understand, or maybe accept, the mentality itself. If everything was easy, everyone would do it. If life was lived best when it was lived safe, you’d never know what your fears are or, I dare say, much about yourself, really.

I understand that it’s human nature to want things to always turn out or to be easy or simple, etc. But I’ve never once been taught that that’s how life actually is. Sure, you can force yourself to think that way and in doing so degrade your self happiness, or you can work at something to try to make it easier later (which is what most people do), but rarely is something ever actually easy, safe and simple. Personally, I don’t mind that.

As a small aside, I’ve had the privilege of meeting someone that is very dedicated to running, for instance. I think everyone should know someone like this. I never understood the sport of cross-country running or running for fun at all, really, until I met this person.

And I have to say; I have a newfound appreciation for runners. Sure, it’s good to compete and to try to beat your opponent in the race, but I learned that (I think) for them, their toughest opponents are themselves. They try new techniques or new exercise habits to shave off seconds from a personal best time for a certain race length. It’s an extremely self-disciplined sport/activity that everyone could learn from, including the above-mentioned parent. Because the runner kind doesn’t do what they do because it’s easy or because it’s popular – they do what they do because of the thrill of doing it. I’m sure it helps that it’s amazing exercise and can teach you other things about yourself that you maybe never knew. But at the end of that race, much like life I guess, it won’t always matter how many people you beat or how well you compared to others in doing so. It will only matter that you are yourself happy with how it ended. And if you’re not, you’ll do something to be better position yourself for a happier ending, right?

So I guess that would be my long-winded answer as to why we get in the competition even if our chances are slim for winning. Or why my peers are still stressing themselves out, taking mediocre jobs to pay for the rent in a place where they think they have a better chance of eventually having that happier living. Or why – to go back to what started this— same-sex couples across this nation are getting married, as best as they can, even if a piece of paper doesn’t recognize it or their taxes won’t see the financial benefits. There’s only so much we can control in life. For everything else, there is doing something or being with someone that brings happiness within reach.

Act, not react

Since I don’t have Webster’s next to me, the best I can do is dictionary.com:
For “act,” there are quite  a number of definitions, but I’ll try to pick the ones I think are most relevant to the statement above.

Act: noun. (1) anything done, being done or to be done: a heroic act. (2) the process of doing: caught in the act.
verb. (10) to do something; exert energy or force; be employed or operative: He acted promptly in the emergency. (11…likely most relevant) to reach, make, or issue a decision on some matter: I am required to act before noon tomorrow.

React: verb. (1) to act in response to an agent or influence: How did the audience react to his speech? (2) to act reciprocally upon each other, as two things. (3) to act in reverse direction or manner, especially so as to return to a prior condition. (5…yes, not 4) to respond to a stimulus in a particular manner: reacting to a shock by jumping; to react to the word “coward” with anger.

In brief, the above title was a word of wisdom on a calendar of mine a while back but I haven’t found a place or a way to apply it until recently. I think it’s a pretty important one. Too often we only react to something or someone rather than taking action to begin with. I’m no poster child for that either, but I thought it was worth noting.

I think it’s natural instinct to react, but I also think you’ll only ever have reactions until you decide to take action. Hopefully that makes sense. If you refuse to act on a situation, why bother wasting the time and energy to react? Or can an action be part of a reaction? Whoa. Getting a bit far-out here.

I guess it’s a short tidbit to say as compared to some other entries but I wonder what life would be like if people just took action rather than simply say that something is (insert adjective/s here). I guess if you’re so compelled by something then you’ll take action, right? But it can hint at a mediocre way of living if all we do is react. I think it should be something people try to do more of: To take action. I know I will. Or perhaps we need to be more proactive in this society, not necessarily just doers of action. Let’s see…

Proactive: adjective. Serving to prepare for, intervene in, or control an expected occurrence or situation, especially a negative or difficult one; anticipatory: proactive measures against crime.

I guess both are relevant. If we’re ever going to make something of ourselves, our world or the people in both, I guess it’s necessary to be both proactive and take action upon reaction. Sounds like a good resolution…even if it’s a few months late.

Penny-pinchers

I’ve come to expect a degree of professional, well-balanced reporting from the crew at Bloomberg and Businessweek. Well, I haven’t been let down by this article about young consumers and their penny-pinching habits. It’s very well-versed with statistics that, as one that is smack dab in the middle of the said millenial (or as I prefer, twentysomething) cohort discussed, I can hardly refute but of course analyze.

A lot of the story picks from a recent Pew Research Center study that I featured in another blog already, so be sure to check that out. The rest picks from other well-credited sources such as the Bureau of Labor  Statistics, Fidelity Investments and the like. But the first portion I want to defend is the age-old “entitlement” theory, thrown in the Businessweek article by an exec from WSL Strategic Retail:

“It’s culture shock because this generation has grown up entitled,” she said.

Who was entitled? I’m not denying myself and many of my peers perhaps were PRIVILEGED from their early youth into about mid-teens…discounting the lower quarter of what Businessweek says is an age group between 18 and 34 because I don’t know those between 18 and 20 years-old all that well. But for those between 22 and 28 that I know a little better, I’d argue the economies of their youth permitted a sort of privilege that, say, Gen Xers didn’t always have. I mean think about it. We grew up when stocks soared, the nation wasn’t much in the red and eventually was in the black, and technology was a new investment everyone wanted to — and quickly had to — make. Some Gen Yers didn’t have to work for so much that way, because their parents — as parents do — generally tried to provide as much as they could to them (perhaps scarred from their own childhoods?). The article even eventually makes mention of how Baby Boomer parents were all about abundance whereas millenials prefer to do more with less.

Which leads me well into my next point, actually. The entire premise of the article is how millenials spend their money…a long-winded way of saying that they don’t, really. But consider the psychological aspects here. You grow up with these privileges and seeing this abundance and watching parents be happy because they worked hard and got paid for it, too…another point I’ll touch on later. Side step — happier, perhaps, through independence/divorce? Anyway, then all of the sudden, when life already sucks as a teenager, the spending just comes to a stop or at least a HUGE decrease. A financial crisis is on the rise and it’s not getting any better. Families start to tear at the seams and the one thing their kids can point it to is MONEY. Ever since there’s been a lot less of it, it hasn’t been nearly as happy around here.

So does it really come as a shock that millenials are penny-pinchers? Give them credit for at least trying not to repeat the mistakes of their parents. To its credit, the article does touch on this a bit by use of unemployment statistics, education debt and so on. But in a more transparent way of saying it: My guess is millenials are trying to do better than what their parents did. And can you blame them? As I’ve said before, I’m extremely grateful for everything my parents have been able to provide…I guess that’s something you realize once you get older (damn, they were right on that one). And to add in a little more of a personal story, I was definitely THAT teenager that couldn’t understand why her parents didn’t spend money on “cabins” (as they’re called in Michigan), boats, buying their kids their first cars, etc. But to their credit, my parents are probably better off than others’ parents.

The simple truth is this: You learn from your surroundings. Either you like the way things worked out for your parents or guardians or whomever when they penny-pinched or you didn’t…when you get older, you choose to manage your finances accordingly. Same thing for wealthier families.

“This customer doesn’t pay up for a product and they might not turn into a 45-to-50-year-old who will,” an analyst is quoted as saying.

Yes and no. Again, I think that’s a product of Gen Y’s surroundings.

In the affirmative: Apparently, clothes are an important item to this generation. I guess I could kind of see that…for what money it does make, Gen Y wants to at least give the perception that they are somebody better. Maybe because they believe they can become something better that way? You can see the same trend in celebrities, though. I have to admit, the financial sensibility of that finding is still a little puzzling to me. Clothes are by no means an investment…they’re quick purchases that change by season (though I’d argue many of their shoppers don’t) and are dictated by what a bunch of fashion gurus say SHOULD be the big deal. For a generation that supposedly doesn’t give any energy to corporate powers, those fashion gurus are kind of the same thing. My personal motto: Why live my life by what somebody else dictates? I like what I like and I don’t what I don’t.

That said, the same mentality could be applied to the allegation (and probably truth) that Gen Y may never turn into a customer that ponies up the dough for things other generations find as a source of wealth. While these other things (cars, stocks, whatever) may be more of investments, perhaps the logic that nothing is ever a certainty and therefore there’s no point in making “an investment” may take over. That analyst also said that “Retailers need to worry about how to build a relationship with this consumer,” and I’d agree. It’s kind of scary to think that there’s people out there whose sole job is to get into the minds of you, me, my peers, etc. But obviously that’s how businesses thrive…by keeping up with the trends.

However, for the negative: I don’t think retailers should freak out just yet. Give it another five years. I know a business can go bankrupt in that kind of a time, but patience is key. In addition to the emotional traumas that your home-run generation went through, they’re still having problems getting jobs that pay a fair wage. While bachelor degrees are a dime a dozen, each of these “kids” have something unique to offer in a job setting. But as long as Baby Boomers and older generations look to their younger predecessors as a threat, they won’t leave their power trip or their job. The focus for both employers and retailers should shift to how this generation can HELP them, not hurt them. I know it’s instinct to protect oneself from harm and the older folks get the more conservative their risk-taking tends to become, but perhaps that’s why you should hire a twentysomething — as a fresh perspective into the emerging market. That alone is an invaluable opinion to have and it’s worth paying for.

Negative’s bottom line: Gen Yers should start recognizing their worth without inflating their heads. Stop settling for the job that pay the bills and start demanding the position — and pay — that pays bills and affords small luxuries. It may seem difficult to do at first when the security of paying the bills is enough, but the hardest part of anything, for anyone — myself included — is realizing you’re good enough. People don’t lose weight because they keep eating what works for them, they lose weight because they realize they’re capable of doing it. An athlete doesn’t excel by doing the same thing every day but rather builds confidence by doing repetitively well. Promotions or job advancements don’t come to those who keep meeting expectations — they come to the ones who are not afraid of the challenge that comes with proving you deserve it.

So while I believe there is truth and explanation for why millenials are penny-pinchers, I don’t believe it always has to be that way. Let’s hope it isn’t always that way.

Positive influence…in all its forms

It’s amazing how true it is that you are who you surround yourself (or what you eat, depending on the context). I have to say that I’ve been pretty fortunate to surround myself with positive influences, both family and friends. But especially friends.

It’s no disrespect to family but I’m fascinated by how much my friends and I rely on each other. Not so much in dependence but for general sanity purposes. Again, I’m incredibly thankful for the support my parents and other family have been able to provide throughout life but I think sometimes their protective nature can be overwhelming. I guess it depends on the family, how the parents were raised and how they choose to raise their kids. But I also know that obviously parenting isn’t as simple as saying ‘this is how I will raise my kids’ and that’s the end of it. Things change. Kids change. The times change. And we all have to adapt accordingly. But really, I’m curious if others feel like they’re being held back by their family’s good intentions or if it’s all just part of growing up.

I know a solid handful of my peers up and moved right after college graduation to pursue their dreams and maintain their independence. For others — admittedly myself included — they just couldn’t justify the financial risk of doing that. I can see both sides and I’ve probably seen an equal amount of successful and unsuccessful attempts from the mover…though truthfully, probably just a tiny bit more success. I guess that can speak to the motivation and determination of such folks too. I’m apprehensive to say which is the better way, though.

Regardless, one common element of both the frugal financial and the motivated mover, I think, is their dependence on at least one other person going in the same direction trying the same thing. It’s almost as if that person(s) of similar mindset is the reinforcer that no matter what happens, everything will be ok. “You’ve got a friend in me,” as Randy Newman once composed.

And I think that’s super important to have. It’s kind of scary to say that in making a big decision, I tend to consider the advice of my friends more than my parents. I don’t know why that is…that for whatever reason I feel my friends are more knowledgable or logical than these folks twice my age that have seen much more life. Or maybe they’re just more understanding.

For instance, while I’m sure my parents had all the same desires and longings I’m going through now once before for themselves, I don’t actually know. I suppose I look at their life and where they’ve been, and while it makes them happy, it doesn’t do a single thing for me. I’ve often called it a generation gap — and I still stand by that — but lately I wonder if that’s really it, or if there’s just a complete misunderstanding between the two dynamics. I guess that’s still a generation gap, right? I’m hesitant to call it ignorance but it sure comes off that way sometimes. The political landscape as it is now could probably be a testament to that, but I could probably also write a whole book on that too…which I won’t do here.

One particular instance is…well, let’s just say I got some good, mildly optimistic news on something last week. So I’m beyond excited about it but when I started telling my parents…well at least one of them had little to no expression or reaction to it. I could see it might be bad news for them but I wondered: If it’s good news for me, shouldn’t that be all that matters? Sure parents want the best for you, but I think a friend of mine put it best today: Sometimes, it seems like, they want too much of the best for you. And while my friend didn’t say this, I will: Perhaps that’s the case because they also want the best for themselves still. And not in a selfish way, but in that parent way that they say you won’t understand until you have your own kids. Which, by the way, I’m really tired of hearing. I’ve said it before and those that know me best know to never, ever say “once you ____, then you’ll understand.” More often than not, it implies ignorance and is pretty insulting.

But moving along from that small rant…I was mildly taken aback that the same excitement that radiated from my pores (figuratively of course) wasn’t doing just the same. By contrast, bringing this potentially good news up to a couple of friends elicited the same response I had when I heard it. Was that because I’ve only kept the better people around? Because we have similar interests? Because we’re the same age? Or was it because they’d rather their friend be happy and maybe make a mistake than to have never been happy at all (while parents obviously would rather your life be as mistake-free as possible…again, by default)?

I’ve always read that twentysomethings prefer the opinions of their friends over their parents, but wouldn’t anybody prefer the opinions of those who support them, especially when that support echoes one’s own personal ambitions?

I’ve been looking for a place to use this quote from a “happiness calendar” that a friend got for me for Christmas. I think it might be relevant here:

“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” — Carl Jung

Boomerang generation

I found a study by Pew Research Center today which labelled what I call twentysomethings (or sometimes, if I have to, millenials) as boomerangs. The analogy was surprisingly spot on — people who move away from home for a short time but then come right back. The study found quite a bit but I’ll try to break it down into more relevant pieces. 

For starters, nearly 40 percent of all young adults (between 18 and 34) surveyed moved back home or still live at home with their parents because of the economy. But the demographics show greater variance. 53 percent of 18 to 24-year-olds could say such was the case here, while 25 to 29-year-olds called 41 percent and 17 percent was claimed by 30 to 34-year-olds.

OK so let’s start there. Personally, I’d like to see data of post-undergraduate level folks only. I’m not sure if Pew accounted for this, but when I was in college, I moved back home several times because either housing elsewhere was unavailable or I just didn’t have the money to spend on the housing. It’s still starting to me that young adults between 25 and 29 have such a staggering rate, but it concerns me more that “moved back temporarily in recent years” is pooled together with those still living at home — the former seems subject to interpretation. Perhaps I’m reading the survey wrong, but I know quite a few people who moved back home after they graduated college because they didn’t have a job or a place to go elsewhere. But they have a job elsewhere now. Does that still count? Admittedly, Pew says they focused most of their report on those between the ages of 25 and 34 (from more than 2,000 recipients dialed up in Dec. 2011, for those who care about that stuff). However, I’m not surprised that the number is so low for those 30 and up, either. Generally by that point one has acquired more knowledge, has developed more financial foresight and above all has built even more experience to put on their resume.

But the news wasn’t all doom and gloom or harsh criticism. More generally speaking nearly half of all young adults who currently live at home or moved back temporarily said it didn’t have any affect on their relationship with their parents. 34 percent said it’s been good and 18 percent say it’s been bad. Parents of those with a child who has moved back home in recent years because of the economy were also just as happy with their family life than their counterparts without children living at home…well that’s good.

And contrary to all those calling boomerangs (not gonna lie, I kind of like that, sad as it may be) the lazy generation that believes in entitlements, Pew found 96 percent of those between the 18 and 34 cohort who DO live at home reported they (at least) help around the house. 75 percent contribute to household expenses and 35 percent pay their parents rent — special thanks to WaPo for summarizing that in such a well-worded manner. What’s more, Pew found, is that while these young adults may live with their parents or temporarily moved back in, they’re not exactly dependent. Among all adults 25-34, only 38 percent report their financial situation as “linked” (associated with? impacted by?) to their parents while 20 percent said “not too much” and 41 percent said “not at all.” That said, it’s mildly concerning to see that those who are not all affected has no statistical difference from those who DO report being linked to their parents…perhaps a sign of a wealth gap? Well, that’s for another time.

All in all, I generally hate quoting statistics. They’re so very subject to interpretation (as you can tell) and, consequently, misrepresentation. But I do firmly believe in the folks at Pew and I thought this study — when you have a clear head — is pretty true in nature. That said I’m not exactly surprised. The older the cohort gets, it seems, the less likely they are to be associated with their parents whether literally or financially.

As mentioned, statistics always do little justice to exceptions as well (I guess as they’re intended to). While it may seem like those between 18 and 29 don’t mind their parents as roommates, my experience has found that relatively few people ACTUALLY feel that way. Sure, their situation is doable but ask them if they’d rather live on their own (not considering financial obligations) and I’m sure the numbers will shoot up. It’s the natural course of us as humans…you’re born, you rely on your parents, you can’t stand your parents (loved those teen years), you appreciate your parents and you distinguish yourself from your parents (though hopefully without alienating them). It’s good that twentysomethings feel they have a comfortable situation and it’s even better that so many people are fortunate enough to be allowed back by parents who likely couldn’t have said the same thing when they were your age. But I am slightly concerned that the twentysomethings will get too comfortable….before they get frustrated, anyway.

Pew said it themselves: it’s become a “widespread phenomenon” for young adults to just accept that they will have to move back in with their parents after they graduate and perhaps stay there for a little bit before they can get their feet up off the ground. Rather than meet expectations, be the exception. The important thing to realize is that initiative is everything.

Kony 2012

So I debated a long time about whether or not to post this because it seems to have turned into quite the controversial issue. And then I though…well, I guess all the more reason to do it, right?

So if you haven’t noticed, you should check out this video that’s gone viral, as they say. Really, it has. In just a few hours, the view count has increased more than 2 million views since I first checked it out and it keeps going. If it doesn’t catch headlines soon — as it intends to do — I’ll be shocked.

In short, the video is about a man named Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda. The video was created by the group Invisible Children, whose mission it is to “help end the longest-running armed conflict in Africa,” which, not unlike similar armed conflicts in Africa, forcefully enlists the help of child soldiers to carry out the work of a war that began long before they were ever even born. It seems like a simple hero-villan story, right? Obviously no one likes the idea of using innocent children as soldiers, let alone when it’s involves complex matters of power struggles that they can’t even comprehend.

But the video is coming under question from some media outlets and general observants because of the way the director uses his cute son to indirectly say ‘it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the problem,’ as well as the way Invisible Children allegedly uses the donation money it receives and so on. Critics have said the video, while heartbreaking, captures the vulnerability of one’s emotions to coax you into action and disgrace at what’s happening on another continent. Other critics have also said the director manipulates data from the long conflict, or uses “shocking statistics” as debate coaches and the media might call it.

Well, let’s take one point at a time. First, yes, I’d agree that the film plays on your emotions. But don’t politicians do just the same? They coin their phrases and speak to you at rallies knowing exactly what their audience wants to hear. After all, you wouldn’t have attended a rally or speech or event of someone that you oppose, generally, right? Movies play on our emotions too. That’s why we all have our favorite types and watch them when we have certain emotions or life experiences. We ask them to make us feel better or feel like we’re not alone, in a sort of sense. I remember a debate class I had in college…and using the emotions stirred up with certain national event that everyone in our audience would be able to relate to. I think my team won that debate. 

Truth is, catching your emotions is part of making a point. It’s part of getting you to think. It gets your attention, for better or for worse. If it’s for the better, maybe you’ll act on it. If it’s for worse, you’ll probably still talk about it, right?

And that’s just the point of this short documentary. Perhaps I’m wrong but the goal of the campaign is to get the world to hear the name Joseph Kony and have most of you know who he is if you didn’t before. If you decide to donate to the cause or participate in the campaign, that’s up to you. So I say give credit where credit is due. In a world where things can go viral, “sharing” goes through the roof and the world’s wealth could stand to give a little bit of their time or resources to help the world’s poor, this campaign is doing exactly what it set out to do. If you notice in the beginning of the film, he says he wants to get as many people as possible to see this film. Last I checked, #stopkony is still trending on Twitter and more and more people keep sharing the video on Facebook. It was a smart advertising move that I think others may be jealous they didn’t think of…because in this western civilization, it’s so damn easy. And we all hate having those moments where we think to ourselves, “Why didn’t I think of that?”

Ditto my points for guilty parties that “manipulate” statistics, especially to use for shock value. Americans should know this. We’re in the middle of a presidential primary race, soon to be a presidential election. You honestly think all those folks have been whole-hearted honest? You really think they didn’t conveniently select facts they thought would “expose” opponents? Well, this group has an opponent who probably deserves to be exposed far more than America’s next president. Is it dishonest, misleading even? Maybe. But if the end result brings justice to a whole region of people, don’t we usually overlook it? We wanted to bring democracy to the Middle East, right?

Let it be known I’m not bashing my nation. I love this place just as much as the next hard-working, intelligent person next to me. But this nation also has a way of forgetting what it has until it’s gone. I won’t go into details about that…I’m sure everyone can relate to that statement in one way or another. And I’m not justifying one side of this argument any more than the other, but it’s important to recognize both sides nonetheless.

As for the accusations of how Invisible Children spends its money and how much actually goes back to the people it claims to be protecting…well, I can’t say I’ve done enough research on that to be a legitimate source of argument. But as soon as you build an organization to the extent that this one has done for itself, I’d love for you to tell me the right way money should be spent. Because history will teach us that just sending money over doesn’t promise things will change. Real action needs to happen. Those collecting the money need to be sure it gets into the right hands and in no way contributes to the problem it’s fighting. And in the war-torn places of the third world, you might be surprised how quickly money can get into the wrong hands if it means someone is trying to protect their own family. Watch the movie Blood Diamond if you need an example.

In closing, it should be interesting to see what happens between now and April 20. If this movement has gained as much steam as it claims to have, this could very well be quite the movement for a generation. This campaign is right about one thing at least: Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come, whose time is now.