Don’t Mistake Ambition for Entitlement

by pchristensen • 18 years ago

174 169 18 years ago

iamdave• 18 years ago

Bravo Matt Maroon! Bravo! That was the PERFECT rebuttle to the WSJ article in every way, strong, accurate and pointed. I felt great reading this, every sentence or two I found myself nodding my head in agreement.

jyothi• 18 years ago

Same here. Amazingly well written post. A experience for myself was that I could relate so closely to the post and the sentiments even though I sit here in India.

My parents who fall into the majority middle class educated white collar segment have toiled their 35+ years of work experience hoping for a rosy day, which they would have never seen if we, trophy kids had not changed our attitude and ambition.

PS: Even here miles apart our parents dealt with us - trophy kids - in the exact same way described on wsj - lot of appraisals & proud moments, challenging higher achievement all through.

Another interesting connection I do feel is the outsourcing mundane tasks to India part, though it happens in-house or the company next door. Which implies in India there is a gray segment of the generations that exists.

lincolnq• 18 years ago

I agreed with the article too, but I feel like it was because it was flattering, not because I could tell that it was necessarily correct.

yters2• 18 years ago

Yeah, the article has too much self congratulation. I do think matt's right about our capabilities, but the whole attitude doesn't help things. We need to keep our ambition and drive, but drop the sense that people need to bow to our whims. It is much more effective to learn our work environments and how the system works, and work that to our advantage.

In short, both generations make the same mistake. Both treat their management like parents, and are dependent on them. Consequently, they both use children's strategies to get their way. One goes the goody two shoes route and the other goes the pouty route.

alex_c• 18 years ago

As someone at the older end of the Millenial generation, and someone who grew up in Europe and now lives in North America, I could only read the WSJ article - and all the comments - with some amusement.

What I really read - underneath the "durn kids" feeling - was a generation waking up to the fact that having some of the lowest vacation time in the industrialized world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_emplo...) might not be such a great idea, and a generation of older employers not being happy about it.

martythemaniak• 18 years ago

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.

mattmaroon12• 18 years ago

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.

run4yourlives13• 18 years ago

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)

Eliezer• 18 years ago

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.

randrews3• 18 years ago

This comment reminds me of two friends I've got:

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.

anamax2• 18 years ago

> 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.

nradov• 18 years ago

If your friend wants to write, why doesn't she just start doing it? Is there some evil force preventing her from creating and selling content?

anamax2• 18 years ago

> the other one just doesn't want to use her masters degree as a secretary.

Why not? Is it the kind of writing that she'd be doing (many secretaries write a lot) or is it that she doesn't want to be a subordinate?

I'm beginning to think that the difference between them is that you think that she's entitled to what she wants and he isn't.

After all, one could say that he just doesn't want to use his management degrees to be an individual contributor.

time_management9• 18 years ago

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.

timr5• 18 years ago

As the curmudgeons say: pride goeth before the fall.

I'm not saying that Matt is wrong, or that the WSJ is right, but this essay was just a bit too...precious...for my tastes.

I don't have the answers, and I don't have much confidence in anything, outside of myself. That said, if I know one fact about the world, it's that very few of the self-confident 22-year-olds that I meet are going to get rich from their big brains and hard work. If history teaches us anything, it's that most smart people will fail -- repeatedly and painfully. So, while it's not the right time for the adults to shake their walkers at the children for running on the lawn, perhaps it would be prudent for the kids to hold back on the self-congratulatory essays, in anticipation of the day when it all goes pear-shaped?

I'm not much older than Matt, but even I can detect a distinct generational shift in attitude toward work; I know where the WSJ editorial is coming from, even if I don't agree with its conclusions. And while I'm sure that the brash 20-somethings that I know believe that self-investment and autonomy are the keys to avoiding their parents' fate, that probably has more to do with the abject failure of all previous models of work, than the proven success of this one.

In ten years, some of you will be rich, successful and powerful. Most of you -- despite all of your hard work and independence -- won't be. Which brings me to another thing that the curmudgeons say: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Youth and arrogance are eternal companions.

ph0rque3• 18 years ago

> In ten years, some of you will be rich, successful and powerful. Most of you -- despite all of your hard work and independence -- won't be.

So why spend 60 hours a week in a suit under fluorescent lights in an 8' x 8' cube either way?

mattmaroon12• 18 years ago

Right, we'll all be happier. It's not about being rich, it's about being the primary beneficiaries of our labor and striking a proper work-life balance.

run4yourlives13• 18 years ago

One word: Security.

When you get married and have kids, you'll see how much more important that word becomes.

sant0sk1• 18 years ago

Well said. Wishing you wouldn't have censored yourself. I read your comment before you removed the last line. It hit home very well, imo.

timr5• 18 years ago

Added it back. Thanks.

aneesh• 18 years ago

Well said. The funny thing is, there's nothing about this argument unique to our generation. Both the WSJ article & Matt's response could've been written at any time in the past, and perhaps at any time in the future.

Indeed, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

mattmaroon12• 18 years ago

I don't think that's true. There's been a fundamental shift away from working one job all of your life (as our grandparents did) and being more of a free-agent that could never have been said before.

Prrometheus3• 18 years ago

>If history teaches us anything,

If history teaches us anything, it's that economic reality changes. In the 18th century, the optimal size of the firm was small. There were many independent artisans. In the 19th and most of the 20th, industrialization occurred and firms faced increasing returns to scale. Soon, the mega-corporate-conglomerate ruled the world. Now, information technology means that even small teams can be highly productive. Billions dollar investment funds are run by 20 people.

It is not unreasonable for young people to wish for or strive for the return of the artisan age.

bootload• 18 years ago

"... I don't have the answers, and I don't have much confidence in anything, outside of myself. That said, if I know one fact about the world, it's that very few of the self-confident 22-year-olds that I meet are going to get rich from their big brains and hard work ..."

You will gain answers with time. Your confidence will grow. But chances are if your average "self-confident 22yo" lives in a first world country they are already rich surviving the ardor an diseases of childhood, being feed enough to grow. To have the opportunity to be educated enough to read and write. All that time living in a relatively stable environment.

"... In ten years, some of you will be rich, successful and powerful. Most of you -- despite all of your hard work and independence -- won't be ... the more things change, the more they stay the same. Youth and arrogance are eternal companions ..."

I'll take that back. Probably one of the most astute things I've read this week.

sabat• 18 years ago

Precious essay or not, his larger point stands: we are more on our own than our parents or grandparents. The Republican party and the ultra-conservative movement of the past 25 years has created a new wild west; it's every man for himself.

BTW this is not just for Matt's "Nintendo" generation (Y, I presume). It goes for aging generation X, as well.

babul• 18 years ago

You speak so much sense I wish I could give you more than +1 points.

pg2• 18 years ago

You'd have to know Matt to know this, but he's about as unentitled as you get. His brash confidence is the deliberate brash confidence of the WC Fields variety, not the naive sort that comes from inexperience.

gibsonf14• 18 years ago

(Building) Architecture may be an anomaly to Matt's belief that the new generation is better, but I've noticed a precipitous decline in ability of graduating architecture students over the last decade. Its so bad now that I simply can't afford to hire anyone right out of school because the cost to my firm of both extensive training and loss from mistakes is so high. The problem I see is architecture schools focusing on trends in aesthetics such as deconstruction rather than teaching students how to actually build a building. This is probably different than CS schools in that the deconstruction philosophy necessitates divorcing building from reality, which hopefully there are no parallels for in CS programs.

bokonist8• 18 years ago

Architecture has been in awful state for the past 80 years. Just compare buildings built in the 20th century to those in the 19th century. My girlfriend is getting her masters in architecture now and it's an awful waste of money. She's learned a lot about "aura" and generating weird building designs from algorithms, but precious little about how to create buildings people would enjoy living in. The schools should be shut down and boarded up before they do any more damage, and the architecture profession should return to an apprenticeship system.

gibsonf14• 18 years ago

The new trend in using algorithms to design buildings is a fancy way to divorce the building design from the problem at hand - a classic principle of deconstruction.

As far as the state of architecture in general over the last 80(!) years, I disagree with you. The current philosophical trend is deconstruction which is making some architects adhering to that philosophy quite trendy and famous, but there are many other architects who could care less about the latest trend and pursue their own work with a different core philosophy (myself included).

pchristensen• 18 years ago

My cousin studied architecture at Cooper Union from '97-'99 but left because he couldn't stand deconstructionism. That doesn't help train more competent architects, but maybe it's a signal that schools will see.

gruseom• 18 years ago

Wow, if what you're saying is true then the cultural rot made it into a field with practical, physical consequences. That surprises me. When I encountered deconstruction and such things, they were only thriving in environments like literary studies.

On the other hand, architecture as a field (at least the elite stuff) seems to have been moving away from "reality" for such a long time that perhaps this is just going the whole hog.

anthonyrubin• 18 years ago

While this is a great defense of Matt and people like him, the people described by the WSJ absolutely exist.

tomjen2• 18 years ago

Yes they do exist. They exist because those people are us. Nobody argues that the WSJ was wrong about the data they collected, but they were horribly wrong with their conclusions and assignment of blame.

dionidium• 18 years ago

It’s also largely intellectual activity, which is considerably more fatiguing than routine physical tasks. Jobs in information technology might look a lot easier than manual labor to an outside observer, but they’re not. Burnout sets in much faster...

Has Matt ever worked full-time in a factory or as a cashier at a busy grocery store? Nobody is disputing that intellectual work is challenging, but most physical labor involves a level of soul-sucking tedium and repetition that I'd suspect anyone with a college-to-cubicle story can't even imagine.

I'd add that my experience is that these environments are also often ruled with a totalitarianism that makes the worst office job look positively cozy.

ph0rque3• 18 years ago

Sounds like a startup opportunity for Factory 2.0 ;~).

mattmaroon12• 18 years ago

I was a cashier for two years at two different places, then was a checkout supervisor for one. Ran a meat counter, worked the floor at a Sam's club and a Home Depot, and ran a restaurant, all before the age of 22.

I'm no stranger to menial labor.

peakok• 18 years ago

One day I was having a discussion with a cashier in my neighborhoord. A kind woman in her fifties, who started this job before I was born. She used to be always cheerful and serviable, but not on that particular day. The conversation went like this :

"- What's going on ?"

"- I had an awful streak of horrible clients today, it really got me down"

"- Ah... Yes, I know what you're talking about, I used to be a cashier myself at X last year and some clients were just unbearable, I understand your pain."

"- Sure, but I'm not quitting my job in 6 months."

"- ..."

I just read your bio on a poker site. I saw that The Big Lebowski is your favorite movie. As someone a bit younger than you and who had his fair share of dirty jobs as well, I suggest you to rewatch another Cohen brothers classic : Barton Fink. Hell is not Hell when you're only a guest.

motoko3• 18 years ago

I worked at McDonalds for $5.15/hour for a year in high school. I was satisfied because it was better than working as a bagger for the same wage, minus "union dues."

These jobs aren't so terrible as they are numbing. I don't remember hating these places, I don't remember them at all. I don't remember much of my youth before 18. That part of my life is simply gone.

Does that scare you?

bokonist8• 18 years ago

The Republican Party has spent the last 28 years systematically destroying unions.

The decline of the unions had much more to do with 1) competition from the American south, Mexico, and Asia, and 2) the rise of an American tribute empire, where America's primary export is debt that then gets inflated away. This enriched those connected to the debt creation ( Wall St, government workers at all levels, licensed occupations, people in real estate) but devastated manufacturing.

mattmaroon12• 18 years ago

You should read more Krugman. It started with Reagan.

bokonist8• 18 years ago

I've read plenty of both Krugman and others like him that make the same point. I find it entirely very unconvincing. For instance, take the city of New Haven, where I went to college. In the 1950's the city had a thriving industrial base and tens of thousands of high paying union jobs. Over the next few decades many of these businesses collapsed due to competition from lower priced manufacturing in the South and West. Manufacturing jobs went from 43% of New Haven employment to 20% by 1973. The famous Winchester factory went from an employment of 10,000 to around 700 by 1979. In that year there was a massive strike. The strike caused the factory to hemorrhage money and corporate actually ended up selling it for peanuts to the employees. But even as an employee owned enterprise, it failed to make money, and eventually it closed completely. Today Winchester rifles are manufactured on a multinational basis, with some parts being made in Utah and others in Portugal. This same story was repeated across the rust belt, from Detroit to Philadelphia. None of this fits Krugman's story. The unions were strong, they were just asking for more money than the market would pay them (although the market was rigged, as I note below).

If your interested in reading more, I highly recommend Douglas Rae's City: Urbanism and its End. Here is an except from Google books that talks about the decline of manufacturing in New Haven: http://books.google.com/books?ei=FgwCSeeYGoLmygS73cy3Cw&...

A lot of the worst downsizing did indeed happen during the Reagan presidency. But that had a lot more to do with Volcker's strong dollar policies, high interest rates, and the resulting rise in the trade deficit, than it had anything to do with Reagan's policies. For the past thirty years, foreign governments and investors have been selling the U.S. cheap manufactured goods and then buying our financial securities. This has decimated our manufacturing sector as domestic producers have been unable to compete with manufactures in countries with an artificially weak currency. But its been a windfall to everyone in the U.S. who borrows money - from leveraged buyout firms to the government itself.

redrobot50503• 18 years ago

Nonsense. Unions have been targeted ever since the civil rights movement; the labor movement gave rise to organized communities of (African-American) workers eager to get rights outside of the shop floor.

Its one of the very reasons the labor movement in this country stays dead. People in power aren't interested in upheaval.

tom_rath4• 18 years ago

Has there ever been a generation which hasn't claimed "This time, things will be different!"? If you'll look back on what was written caustically about (and in rebuttal by) the Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers, I'm not seeing much difference now.

There are going to be a few of us in each generation which set out to be entrepreneurs and will tenaciously stick by that world-view our entire lives. The readers of this board are a self-selecting group (and aren't necessarily representative of the latest set of graduates) but many will still end up employee grist for the cubicle mill after their first dozen major setbacks.

mattmaroon12• 18 years ago

The boomers have had a tremendous effect on society. If you don't believe me, go visit a Whole Foods or read Bobos in Paradise.

They said things would be different and they are. Marijuana may not be legal yet (in most states) but a lot has changed.

tom_rath4• 18 years ago

Every generation has had a tremendous effect on society.

Has there ever been a "Meh, fuck it." generation?

time_management9• 18 years ago

Marijuana may not be legal yet (in most states) but a lot has changed.

On Whole Foods and the return to the cities, that's a reaction against mistakes made by prior generations. Processed food and suburbia are falling out of favor not because the Boomers fought against them in the '60s, but because all generations are recognizing them as harmful and moving away from them.

What happened with the Boomers and drugs in the '60s is a blip on the radar. That generation is now the greatest obstacle in repealing the War on Drugs, which draws its support from moralistic, reactionary Boomers. Xers, as a general rule, are too pragmatic to dump hundreds of billions of dollars into ineffectual and damaging moral pissing contents.

In fact, the naively utopian druggies of the 1960s fucked up a lot of opportunities for discovery. Humanity's knowledge of powerful and potentially very helpful (but also dangerous when misused) chemicals like LSD and psilocybin is decades behind where it should be, since the illegality of these substances also entailed a research ban. LSD/psilocybin research was considered completely respectable in the 1950s and '60s-- LSD's inventor was a respected chemist who used it experimentally but rarely, and lived to be 102. This was before a small set of clowns, driven by half-baked knowledge and clouded judgment, started publically recommending these drugs to everyone. That sort of idiocy, of course, hasn't gone away; these days, we have moronic 17-year-olds posting salvia videos on Youtube... although that is definitely not a drug to take likely.

Mistone• 18 years ago

matt, really well done, right or wrong the points are strong and presented in a very interesting manner. I've read a lot of your blogs here on yc news and have rarely agreed with you, in Maroon vs. WSJ article, I'm all in on Maroon.

run4yourlives13• 18 years ago

I'm an Xer (75). Let me just say that based on my experience, which includes a few years in management, the WSJ article is an accurate and fair description of the millennial generation (from a purely stereotypical pov).

Now, that's not to say I disagree with Matt. He does however use many counter arguments that are more applicable to Xers than millenials (Yers). Yer's have never seen much of economic downturn, and the "meager, middle class lifestyles" they been living are have showered them with seemingly endless material wealth.

I think Matt has misread most of the WSJ article, to be honest.

ericwaller2• 18 years ago

I don't doubt that the description is fair, but I think that it comes down to this: if a few entitled slackers expect 6 figure salaries straight out of college, that's their problem, but if an entire generation of would be slaves aren't eagerly strapping on the chains, that's management's problem.

As a gen Yer, I got the sense from the article (and I'm sure this is full of bias) that the onus was on me to "shape up." I think the exact opposite is true, that management is going to have change expectations (which the article does address).

run4yourlives13• 18 years ago

I didn't get that sense to be honest. WSJ's audience is mainly boomers in management roles, not you. (although there's an example of what the article is trying to say!)

I agree though that this isn't your problem at all, and I think you're seeing that shift with the notion of flex time, etc. These things only exist as a response to your generation. Xer's would have loved them, but we never had the numbers.

And that's the other key: your numbers. The last generation to cause this much havoc in the workplace was your parents'. I think it's funny that it's them that will need to deal with the fruits of their labour, to be honest. :-)

kingkongrevenge3• 18 years ago

I think both matt and the wsj are off. It's not about a sense of entitlement or superior productivity (which I don't believe for a minute). The wsj "brat" characterization doesn't match the "lazy" characterization I've more commonly seen.

The real story is that the younger generation doesn't want to work hard because at some subconscious level they understand that the current system will not continue and will not reward hard work as it has. They know they won't see a dime of their substantial FICA withholdings. They know they will not ride another bull market to retirement and collect government checks. Perhaps at some level they have even sensed the precarious state of the dollar and the potential futility of trying to squirrel away wealth. Why work hard when the government will tax or inflate most of it away, and you're unlikely to get good compensation in the first place?

The older generations are too invested in the system to reach similar conclusions. (Though it's interesting that doctors and lawyers are leaving the professions in droves.) It's the psychology of sunk costs. Asking around about social security is highly illustrative. A large fraction of young people will come right out and say SS is probably going to collapse in coming years. Very few people in their 40s will admit to this obvious truth.

This pattern where the younger generation senses the jig is up and gives up the struggle before their elders can admit it is not rare. You can see the same thing in Japan. You saw it in the Soviet Union before the fall.

pg2• 18 years ago

Pundits said exactly that about Generation X in the 90s. They turned out to be mistaken, as you are.

fallentimes4• 18 years ago

"The real story is that the younger generation doesn't want to work hard"

I'm not saying this isn't true (I don't know). But how could you ever prove this?

kalvin2• 18 years ago

Social security is not going to collapse unless the rest of the US goes first. It's no more an "obvious truth" than "global temperatures are going to rise 10 degrees by 2100." Yes, it could happen, but only if we do nothing policy-wise to fix it, which is unlikely.

Medicare is another story. Look at the this graph to get an idea of the difference:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=0...

(Liberal blog, but the data speaks for itself.)

nostrademons6• 18 years ago

I couldn't tell whether this entry was satire or not. It started getting a little over-the-top at "If we seem to have high self-esteem, it’s because we’re better."

Regardless, I don't see why the original article merits a response. There will always be people who don't like you, think you have it too easy, and are willing to paint a whole generation with that brush. Ignore them. There's little you can say that'll make them change their minds, and usually they'll just take your rebuttal as evidence of entitlement or arrogance anyway. Actions speak louder than words.

markessien• 18 years ago

Frankly, I don't get this attitude. Who is fighting Matt and his generation? Life is at is always has been, business and ambition is as it always has been.

If you want to strike it out your way, then do so, it's not a fight and nobody will battle to stop you. Just do it in silence, calmy and as if it is perfectly normal, because it is.

The battle is in your head. You see everyone working in cubicles, so your mind is telling you that that is where you should be, but your heart is telling you something else. The struggle is inside you, outside, nothing and nobody really cares what you do with yourself.

strlen2• 18 years ago

I agree with the general sentiment (no point in having company loyalty, longer hours without a purpose and suit/strict work environment not leading to greater productivity), but the people posting on news.y.c are slightly different from Gen Y'ers as a whole.

First most of us are technology professionals who by the time they started their first job out of college had already had work experience (contracting while in college and in my case, also working while a high school student during the dot-com boom).

We however, tend to gravitate towards Internet and specifically web. Outside of these industries, even in software, there is very little chance to work in the sort of relaxed environment that we work in.

For example, several of my friends studied Computer Engineering and Electrical Engineering as undergraduates: they want to do work that is more hardware and algorithm related, to put their education to a use. Nonetheless most of these companies (e.g. Intel) are very much "be there at 8:30, or we'll have a chat" sort of places, where starting salaries are low and advancement is slow.

In the end there are people who are forced to choose between a more relaxed environment and a chance to put their education to a use and work on problems they find really interesting.

Note to entrepreneurs: this is a feature; there are lots of young and ambitious professionals who would love to use their skills in a less rigid environment. Start something other than a web application company and capitalize on this.

(Same holds true for financial companies - many high end finance geeks are now getting layed-off in mass droves -- again, feature, not a bug)

nostrademons6• 18 years ago

> Note to entrepreneurs: this is a feature; there are lots of young and ambitious professionals who would love to use their skills in a less rigid environment. Start something other than a web application company and capitalize on this.

A lot of this is because of the structure of the industries. Software is as pure intellectual capital as it can get, outside of tenured professorships. As a result, the firm's entire capital base exists in the minds of its employees, and this gives them enormous bargaining power.

Hardware companies take significant physical capital to start, so employees can't just leave and do their own thing. That's why you don't see a flood of ambitious youngsters going into hardware. They can't - not without venture capital and a network of suppliers.

Same goes for financial companies - sorta. In finance, the primary capital base of a firm is its reputation and network of dealmakers. When you're just starting out, you have nothing here, which is why newbie I-bankers work 16 hour days and only get paid in the high 5-figures. But once you've been at it for a couple years, you've built up a network, and those clients are yours, which is why experienced I-bankers rake in the dough and have nice working conditions. They simply have more bargaining power.

strlen2• 18 years ago

| Hardware companies take significant physical capital to | start, so employees can't just leave and do their own | thing. That's why you don't see a flood of ambitious | youngsters going into hardware. They can't - not with | venture capital and a network of suppliers.

I suppose you meant 'not without'. This is still largely true, but there are also FPGAs and HDLs and simulators: you can do your R&D and prototyping with fairly low costs (and take VC funding by the time you're ready to market and manufacture a product).

You still have a significant point in this respect, however, and what I meant was more along the lines of entrepreneurs could do something to address the problem of "I didn't spend 4-6 years studying engineering to write PHP, MySQL and Javascript" -- ideas that appeal to those who want to solve harder problems (and perhaps problems related to hardware, but solved in software). If you look at openings at places like Intel you'll see they also employ a great deal of people in software functions (from compilers to data mining/machine learning (for manufacturing)).

There are lot of problems outside of social networking / advertising / web content (not that these are bad problems to solve, no offense intended to anyone) that take low capital to get into yet are complex enough to attract a pool of talent that has fewer options.

time_management9• 18 years ago

In finance, the primary capital base of a firm is its reputation and network of dealmakers. When you're just starting out, you have nothing here, which is why newbie I-bankers work 16 hour days and only get paid in the high 5-figures. But once you've been at it for a couple years, you've built up a network, and those clients are yours, which is why experienced I-bankers rake in the dough and have nice working conditions.

I'm sorry, but I've worked on Wall Street, and you couldn't be more wrong.

I-banking analyst positions are for mediocrities full of empty ambition. Workhorses who'll suck up the shittiest tasks and say, "Give me more." Anyone smart who is interested in finance tries to find a hedge fund that'll take him as a quant or trader... or to get an MBA first, Analysts do not usually have these sorts of options; they endure the miserable lifestyle because they, by and large, are not especially talented or qualified people, and they simply wouldn't otherwise be eligible for the exit opportunities (top MBA, private equity) made available by this path.

Third- and fourth-year bankers do not have their a personal client base... not even close. Additionally, it's logistically difficult to "steal" clients; investment banking is an oligarchy and I think it's extremely difficult to start an independent investment bank. It would also be extremely unlikely that a client would switch loyalties based on the movement of a peon VP. Finally, investment bankers don't have decent working conditions until they attain Managing Director level, and that takes about 10-15 years. Your odds of success as a serial entrepreneur over 15 years would be much higher than the odds of making MD before washing out.

The primary capital base of a banking firm is partly its reputation, but largely the money itself, since even the vanilla operations of banking are costly and risky.

gcheong2• 18 years ago

It seems to me the people who promote these sweeping negative generational generalizations are usually those who have a vested interest in promoting them - this article being a prime example. Hmmm let's see, the WSJ article's arguments were based on:

1.The opinions of a few consultants (who no doubt make at least part of their living offering seminars for the poor managers on how to deal with these 'millenials' as well as seminars for the millenials on how to be effective with their new bosses).

2.Anecdotal evidence from a couple HR people and a couple managers, one "study" by Collegiate Employment Research Institute and MonsterTrak, an online careers site (they did a study - it must be true!)

3.A survey by another career site where even by its own metrics only two dimensions showed a clear majority opinion (higher pay and flexible work schedules - something the workplace has been trending toward for years anyway).

Every generation has been negatively characterized one way or another (the 60's hippies turned into the 70's/80's yuppies, generation "X" aka "the slackers", and now the "millenials" aka "the entitled". Somehow all the generations previous and present did fine and I suspect the same will be of future generations as well.

motoko3• 18 years ago

Please fix the formatting, your lines of text are breaking the page layout.

gcheong2• 18 years ago

Thanks. Is this better? Immediate feedback expected!

nostrademons6• 18 years ago

Could you not indent lists? It makes them preformatted text, without line breaks, which has messed up the whole formatting of the page.

Just have numbered paragraphs, like:

1.) First item.

2.) Second item.

mattmaroon12• 18 years ago

Why has this bug not been fixed yet?

bena2• 18 years ago

Don't mistake Entitlement for Ambition either. Ambition isn't walking into a company and expecting to be well-paid with a lax dress code and ample time off. Ambition is starting your own company and making something you know will be awesome. I'm 28, and I've worked with some of these millenials. They talk a big game, but they have no follow-through. All I hear is about how awesome they are and how they grew up with technology and are so productive compared to the crusty older generations. But all I see are a bunch of kids waxing rhapsodic in a mirror lined echo chamber while the rest of us get something done.

time_management9• 18 years ago

Ambition isn't walking into a company and expecting to be well-paid with a lax dress code and ample time off.

What I've noticed about "my generation" is approximately the following:

The best have a strong desire to work-- to be productive, to keep improving their skills, and to develop their careers at a rapid rate. They're willing to do grunt work, but only if they learn from it (and hopefully, can automate it so that they don't have to do it in the future). They have no loyalty to institutions and very little to individuals aside from close friends; their loyalty is to their projects and education.

The worst of our generation are lazy and yet have the same prima donna attitude. They're annoying. On the other hand, their most damaging trait is their laziness rather than arrogance, and our generation doesn't seem to have fewer or more lazy people than any other. So this isn't really a flaw that is particular to any specific generation.

People like the WSJ are angry about the former set of people: talented people who value growth and productivity over playing nice and paying dues. In essence, they're angry that they can't find the hot girl who thinks she's ugly.

bena2• 18 years ago

Your best share the traits of the best of every generation. Because they don't fit even for whatever reason.

Your worst is your vast majority. And it is the arrogance that breed the laziness. They already know they are awesome and deserve all this stuff, so why aren't people just giving it to them already. Not to mention, the WSJ article seems to imply that there is a high reward/low risk expectation from these people.

And what you say about "talented people who value growth and productivity over playing nice and paying dues" is nearly the same traits that made up the stereotypical "arrogant computer person".

gaius2• 18 years ago

Millenial: Grew up with the Internet, uses MySpace and YouTube like experts.

Gen X: Built the Internet one damn metre of Cat5 at a time.

No comparison, really.

rgr• 18 years ago

This essay is just silly. It makes it sound as if our generation is the first to invent entrepreneurship. Millions of our parents' generation own their own businesses. Entrepreneurship isn't a new discovery. My dad started a software company in the 70s. He didn't have hacker news and y combinator. He wasn't even in silicon valley. And guess what, he did have access to information. Maybe he wasn't inundated by it like we are today, but sometimes I question the value of spending so much time everyday consuming internet "wisdom".

Matt advocates working for oneself is an undisputed ideal, as if it would be better to be an independent owner of a pizza shop than an early (or even not so early) employee of Google.

I think it's likely our generation will have to work harder than our parents and for much less rewards. We have quite a mess to clean up. We'll have to pay for a 10 trillion dollar debt, endless wars, and a generation of retired baby boomers to support in social security and medicare. All this with a declining manufacturing industry and a totally dysfunctional financial system. Contrary to Matt's conclusions, our parents have had it relatively easy.

Starting your own company is an awesome thing to do but let's not fool ourselves into thinking we're privileged geniuses for doing so.

lsc• 18 years ago

sounds like entitlement to me.

nazgulnarsil2• 18 years ago

Some meager, middle-class lifestyle

Spoken like an arrogant suburban raised kid. Do you know that literally BILLIONS would love to have that "meager middle-class lifestyle"? Did you ever pause to consider the luxuries afforded by a middle class lifestyle. By all sane metrics we live like fucking kings.

time_management9• 18 years ago

The American poor/peasants (75+%) have crappy health coverage, no economic security, overpriced and ugly houses built from makeshift materials, food loaded with hydrogenated oil and high fructose corn syrup, a suburbanized lifestyle that fosters alienation while destroying the environment, and menial, servile jobs with low autonomy, inflexible work schedules, and a meager two weeks' vacation allowance... but a Fucking Shitload of consumer trinkets.

nazgulnarsil2• 18 years ago

no one forces these people to waste their income on shiny baubles. many MANY people could get by working less if they cut their consumption.

you act as if health coverage, economic security, underpriced nice houses, a healthy diet, complete social adjustment, and happy fulfilling jobs with lots of vacation are an inherent right.

Yeah, i wish we lived in a world of unlimited resources too. But we don't.

I read this as you being so out of touch with reality that you don't think that middle class or hell even lower class suburban living is a life of ease compared to the world average. when you compare it to history it's even better. You have so few worries that you're able to worry about the future (security, health, diet). That in itself is a luxury.

cpr• 18 years ago

Boy, "better educated than previous generations"? Give me a bloomin' break.

There hasn't been any seriously good education in this country (except at a few places like Thomas Aquinas College in Ojai, CA and the two St. John's campuses) since about 1880 when the good Dr. Conant (president of Harvard) decided that science trumps all, and started heavily diluting what was a fairly decent liberal arts education.

kaens3• 18 years ago

Perhaps "better educated" in the sense that if I want to learn how something works, I can do so - I am not limited by whether or not I am in college, or what is available to learn at my college, or the quality of professors - I am limited only by my desire to learn.

marvin• 18 years ago

What's up with this "war of the generations" you have in the US? It seems to me you have terms for every possible obscure group or phenomenon related to cultural differences between parents and their kids. Everyone blames everyone for something: being ungrateful, snobby, fickle, controlling, etc, etc. It's worse than anything I have ever seen. Seriously, why?

It's paradoxical that some of your age groups blames a younger group for things they themselves did when they were younger. How can you complain about the work ethics of your grandkids when you spent five years high, wandering around at rock festivals?

American culture baffles me in so many ways. Someone should write a book about all the major cultural directions and conflicts in the US, but it would probably be a massive read.

adldesigner• 18 years ago

Replies to this particular entry are a demographic study on their own. Thanks everyone! :)

brianm• 18 years ago

Ya'll made me feel old today :-) I thought it was us Xers who were the rambunctious "zomg, how will they ever function in the work place!" hyper-ambitious folk making the boomers shake their heads...

Love it!

colortone• 18 years ago

exactly

instead of "entitlement" they should said "acting like a 23 year old"

;-)

13ren4• 18 years ago

Sounds like neoteny (rapid learning and childishness) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny#In_humans

I wonder if the ability to absorb new technology has driven neoteny in us, since our beginning?

Maybe the next generation is always evolutionarily fitter than the previous generation, due to being able to absorb new technology more easily because (1). uncluttered and unconfused by the old technology, and (2). immature humans are simply better at learning (the immature young of many species have more plastic brains - they soak up patterns like sponges).

Within that next generation, those who are better at absorbing technology (i.e. ways of doing things), and those that stay in that immature-stage of rapid learning for longer, will be more successful at surviving and passing on their genes. They don't have to be great at it, just better at it than others who can't absorb it as well (or for as many years).

jfarmer• 18 years ago

Welcome to the echo chamber.

slvrspoon• 18 years ago

i guarantee Matt will cringe when he reads this in years to come. some valid critiques of the worker-bee lifestyle, but a completely off the mark sense of true utility, value and cross-generation contribution to such. any small amount of serious study of historical "effort" would cause an about face hear. there is little else to say.

redrobot50503• 18 years ago

I wrote one of those "advice for college graduates" articles after only working for 2 years -- 1 year in a cube farm where you were a thing, not a person, and another in larger company that gave people offices, windows, had wellness programs -- basically gave a shit. People have told me that I would "regret my writing X s/months/years from now" but I still don't.

I (still) wouldn't willingly work in a cube farm. If they're so pressed/cheap for space, I'll gladly work from home instead.

Don’t Mistake Ambition for Entitlement

Related Stories