While I definitely agree with the general sentiment in the post and here on HN (in fact, I recently tried to quit my job and they had to entice me with better work and more money, and the CFO actually tried on a few lines like the ones in the WSJ article), but I'm afraid we might be looking at this through the lens of privilege.
A lot of our peers, whether through lack of work, ability, ambition etc, don't have the same options we do (lots of money, lots of jobs, interesting work), but are still very much stuck in the old-style world.
This doesn't mean you didn't work hard to be in this position, just that our sentiments are probably limited to the top end of our generation and wouldn't make much sense to a lot of other people.
One finished a graduate degree in English last spring. She is now working as an admin assistant for $28k a year. People told her that she had too much of a sense of entitlement, when all she wants is a job doing what she's now very qualified to do: write. She is getting a teaching certification because public schools hire English majors and apparently no one else does.
The other has three degrees in business (two associates and a bachelors). He wants to be a manager, so he's applying for jobs as a manager. He has no experience (he worked as a sacker in a grocery store for about five years, but that's it), no skills (other than supposedly "management"), but since he has a degree in management, he thinks he can just jump right into it. Of course, this hasn't worked out for him so far, so he's working phone support for an ISP and living with his parents, rather than take a job beneath him (I've actually gotten him a higher-paying job at my company, and he didn't even show up for the interview).
One of these people has a pretty large sense of entitlement, the other one just doesn't want to use her masters degree as a secretary.
If you'll think about it, there is actually a huge difference.
The comment I replied to was talking about how as (mostly) programmers, we have a skewed perspective on the job market. Most people in our age range don't get the kinds of job offers we do, and are badly underemployed.
She took a job she was overqualified for anyway, because there was nothing else available, and hates it. He decided to mooch off his parents because he was entitled to a management job (he makes a small amount of money, but spends it all on entertainment).
Being underemployed, and realizing it, is not a sense of entitlement. Asking for handouts because you can't get the job you want (when others are available) is.
> People told her that she had too much of a sense of entitlement, when all she wants is a job doing what she's now very qualified to do: write.
There are plenty of jobs for tech-writers. Advertising and marketing is a lot of writing and pays well.
If she can write and can't find a job writing, then either she's in a "no employment" zone or she's unwilling to write what other people will pay her to write.
Yes. The average liberal arts major makes almost $9,000/year off their writings. You can make twice that much by rehearsing the phrase "Would you like fries with that, sir?".
The sad thing is, that blurb should be read in the beginning of every English class. Writing, like music, is a "night gig" for 99% of the people passionate about it. You still need a day job to cover your rent and lifestyle.
But even they're better off than their parents. Their parents toiled away their lives in abject poverty while someone else benefited from their labor. The lower end of our generation spends their lives playing Guitar Hero and various extreme sports in abject poverty while nobody really benefits from their labor.
At least from a selfish perspective, that's a vast improvement. I'd rather be poor and have fun than be poor and work all the time. In fact, I'd prefer it to being rich and working all the time.
Neither are as good as having fun and making a decent (or beyond) living, especially if you can make working fun too. So yeah, I'm lucky to be in that group.
I think you've got your generations a little mixed up.
Millenials are children of boomers. Boomers in no way have spent their lives "in abject poverty while someone else benefited from their labor".
Boomers spent most of their lives getting high and partying in the ultimate self indulgence. That's why their kids are the way they are.
Now, if you're X, you're parents were kids during either the depression or the war, and as such the values from those times run strong in you. (Added to that the fact that you're always eating the boomers scraps)
I am not sure that being poor and playing Guitar Hero wears less on the nerves than being poor and working, in the long run. I admit I've never tried either.
A lot of our peers, whether through lack of work, ability, ambition etc, don't have the same options we do (lots of money, lots of jobs, interesting work), but are still very much stuck in the old-style world.
The "old-style world" is falling apart. It will die within our lifetime, possibly soon, and those who depend on it may be stranded, but a lot of them will become ambitious and entrepreneurial when they realize that corporate paternalism n'existe pas. As for differences in levels of talent between HNers and the "hoi polloi", the natural component of the difference between us and them is much smaller than we tend to think it is. Even the "average" human mind is incredibly capable.
This country went from a hideous economic depression to full employment in less than a decade, and can do it again. People are extremely mutable.
A lot of our peers, whether through lack of work, ability, ambition etc, don't have the same options we do (lots of money, lots of jobs, interesting work), but are still very much stuck in the old-style world.
This doesn't mean you didn't work hard to be in this position, just that our sentiments are probably limited to the top end of our generation and wouldn't make much sense to a lot of other people.