Got a blog tip? Contact us
« Unmarketable: book and event | Main | My New Favorite Thing: Catalog-Busting »
Introducing the new American worker
Newsflash: kids today are self-absorbed, lazy little pricks. That's what we learned on this recent 60 Minutes episode. There have been a number of news articles on this topic: how twentysomething "millennials" raised on a diet of warm fuzzies and relentless self-esteem building are a disaster in the workplace, needing constant praise and attention. 60 Minutes focuses on how U.S-based corporations are coping by reframing old-school Successories-style motivation with new gimmicks like "wacky" in-office parades, award certificates, and free handjobs.
A Wall Street Journal columnist blames twentysomething narcissism on Mr. Rogers (unfair!), Boomer-style permissive parenting (getting warmer), and the gospel of self-esteem (warmer still). What the press reports seem to miss, however, is the fact that this is the first generation of children raised in an environment of unabashed marketing. In 1980, corporate lobbying managed to get Congress to abolish the Federal Trade Commission's authority to regulate advertising to kids. With no watchdog in sight, an entire industry developed to market directly to kids. Full-length commercials began masquerading as TV cartoons. Channel One launched its in-school advertising "news" network. And junk food marketing skyrocketed. The most common message of marketing to tweens and teens is this: your parents are idiots, your teachers are dull, you're so much cooler than everyone else. But we understand you and know what you want. Product!
What may be bad news for the pampered white kids featured in the segment, though, should be good news for America's immigrants. Based on this segment, I'd say immigrants who've brought over a strong work ethic will have a great shot at out-achieving the coddled elites, once employers stop instinctively hiring rich whites. Let's hear it for class war!
Posted by carrie on 11/12/2007 | Permalink
Comments
handjobs at work?
Posted by: none | Nov 12, 2007 4:59:19 PM
Shit. I knew I was missing something being unemployed.
Posted by: none #2 | Nov 12, 2007 10:50:58 PM
I saw the story and don't believe it. If this is true, the country is finished. I can't believe big companies buy into what these consultants are peddling. These spoiled types will learn their lessons soon enough. I severely doubt that this is the average twentysomething acts. The ones I see week in and week out in the classes I teach seem to be quite adapted to the work world.
Posted by: icebox | Nov 13, 2007 2:40:30 AM
I have no problem believing this because culture -- the environment in which people are raised -- MATTERS. That said, this isn't about every person in his/her twenties, it's about a general tendency among the professional class: affluent, educated (and mostly white) Americans.
Posted by: carrie | Nov 13, 2007 5:34:56 PM
What is also completely missed in the story is that workers in their mid-30s and younger are the first generation to have an almost complete lack of confidence in job stability since the 1930's. When you grew up in the era of pension elimination, massive layoffs, and technology driven age discrimination, it is only logical to take what you can get now.
Posted by: aaron | Nov 18, 2007 7:41:31 PM
I'm not sure what your point is, Aaron. What you say about job stability is true, but these aren't workers eager to find jobs; the perceived crisis is more in the other direction: how US-based corporations will be able to find employees with a real work ethic.... these are workers who don't WANT to stay in the same job forever.
Posted by: carrie | Nov 19, 2007 11:20:40 AM
I think Aaron's point is that after shamelessly squandering the public trust for so long, the work offered by America's corporations today isn't treated with the same deference, or even mock sincerity, it once was. And really, why should it be?
Also, as Barbara Ehrenreich pointed out in Bait and Switch, many executive types are in thrall to any pseudo-mysticism that promises to bolster the bottom line. In this context, in-office parades are a ritualistic extension of the paranoia of the suits, not the supposed perpetual adolescence of their new hires.
Posted by: KG | Nov 28, 2007 3:50:16 AM
I also heard the 60 minutes report you write about. I thought it was unfair criticism of today's 20somethings. One employer or HR type woman over 40 said these kids are ridiculous for not wanting to stay late or come in on a weekend. She's ridiculous. Big business has gotten around the 40 hour work week and overtime with the initiation of salaried employment. I think it's disrespectful to the memory of the men and women who died for the 40 hour work week. Maybe all this self esteem building has actually been positive. These 20somethings have the confidence and self importance (and yes the economic advantage) to stand-up to corporate America and it's manipulations in the work place. And let's face it every generation is filled with people who do the minimal amount of work at their job.
Are we saying that the whole nation of France (people of all ages) who don't want to work more than 35 hours a week are spoiled and over praised. Who praises French?
However, I do think Carrie's point about the influence of advertisement on the young is a good one and I think psychologists should continue to study the effects it has on the child development.
Posted by: rachael | Nov 30, 2007 2:50:03 PM
This view of how individuals in their twenties now are lazy and worthless is a little skewed. First of all, who is spearheading this rhetoric--people in their fifties and sixties that were lucky and blessed enough to become established? Talk is cheap-- these old farts could not handle this era of technological explosion, employment outsourcing, reverse discrimination and uncontrolled illegal immigration any more than we could as young people.
Secondly, all of society is looking at the young to do all the work so the older people can profit and sit on their fat asses (...a point not being addressed--just how active are the "Boomers" and did they really have all that hard of a life when it came to finding employment and raising a family? Are they telling us their story through rose-colored glasses?). Consequently, animosity is focused towards, and more of a burden lies on the shoulders of, the healthy young to work harder. We are not going to kill ourselves for Wall Street like people do in third-world countries.
Thirdly, in the 1950s and within the general time period thereabout the man had the ability to make the money for the household and the woman could stay at home to raise children (not the day-care center). Another wrong thing about today's world--day care centers and the destruction of a nuclear family unit. Now a family can't even survive without a dual income and the competition is much higher (within academics as well as manual labor) due to a steep population increase, stronger corporate strongholds with more low wage jobs, affirmative action, and demand on resources here in America. Our retirement and health insurance plans are shot unless you work for the government. Generally, young people stand in a position where even if they work hard and have a considerable talent, it will not necessarily cover the bills. Granted, there are many lazy turds (of all ages in fact) who do not want to work hard for any wage. However, many of us do work hard and multitask in such a way that is not chronically physiological. I worked full-time nightshift at a grocery store while going to school full-time plus (15 units). I am now working towards a PhD.
It is completely justified for us to raise our middle fingers to this "minimum wage society" and stand up for a decent living as young Americans. In fact, I don't think there is enough of that and we are going to see a disaster within the next generation. As a whole, there are no handouts or free lunches for us young people. Most of us are not rich and if we were, why we would we even bother to show up to a job to show how lazy we were? Why would we go to school and obtain a set of skills? If we are rich and are living off the hardwork of our forefathers, why are we even making a presence in academia and the work force?
Lastly, the American white man in his twenties now is spoiled and has everything handed to him?! Is that some kind of a joke? The American white man has to obtain some advanced degree to make a living unless he/she is some type of business guru (aka has no conscience and rips people off)--and that is if he/she is even accepted into the university to attain that degree. "White men need not apply" is written all over the place.
Young or old, the idiots spewing this garbage can come and try to outwork me and I will show them up. I can take their paycheck and well...they can just check into a geriatric center and burden our health system some more. We are not here to kill ourselves to ensure trips to the Bahamas for CEOs, certain retirees, and anybody else with the "boo hoo--the kids are not working these days" attitude. In addition, we are not foreseeing a sufficient retirement and social security to cover even basic needs for us when we eventually reach retirement age. If life was so hard for the old people when they were young, they can go all the way and be preserved in full martyrdom by living hard until they die.
The bottom line is that we are a generation offered junk (overpriced housing, loan shark financing, low wages) as a result of a capitalistic monster that has no respect for and/or confidence in us. It is an opportunistic pathogen that is not satisfied with any profit margin and will only pay the workforce just enough to stay alive. Now a nebulous pool of older people are angry at us for our attitude. But our anger burns much deeper than theirs because we are trying to feed our human needs, not an insatiable corporate greed.
Posted by: EB | Dec 31, 2007 6:17:21 PM
AMEN EB -Could not have said it better.
Posted by: DMK | Feb 22, 2008 4:25:52 AM
Yeah, right on. Lets here it for corporate work ethic. Give your cheer for stress and overworking. I know this world is better off without humankind actually enjoying their life. I mean really, thats the point of this life isn't it. To work, pay taxes, pay bills, work at least two jobs to support your family, and then die of a stress related illness. What a wonderful life and work ethic you advocate. Work, get stressed, die. I couldn't agree more. We truly are generation of junk. Junk food and junk goods to overstimulate our minds. I cannot agree more. Therefore, in accord with our vacant understanding reality, why don't we all overwork ourselves for the same corporations that are providing us with the junk we consume. If you couldn't tell, I disagree vehemently with your view. It is the view that you hold that brings suffering to the 21st century.
Posted by: Robert | Feb 24, 2008 9:13:16 PM
Sorry, I agree with the general gist of the complaint. As a GenXer who trains and works with a lot of young Y'ers, I am stunned by the number of them who just have no idea of what the phrase "personal responsibility" means. If they forget something, it's their (usually undiagnosed, or so they claim) ADD. Constantly late? It's the train. 2-hour lunch breaks so they can work out in the middle of the day instead of after work like th rest of us? Doctor's orders of course. It's gotten to the point that when I do get someone really worth working with, I throw my weight behind them to get them to keep their good habits and some semblance of a work ethic.
Posted by: Jen | May 6, 2008 2:44:17 PM
