DISQUS

Shaun · 1 year ago

These points are a good start, but I don't think the author really ever address the fact that his conclusions about an entire generation are really only relevant for a subset of mostly male, mostly white, mostly middle-class, technologically savvy information workers.

It's also a weak argument to make that "intellectual activity... is considerably more fatiguing than routine physical tasks," without qualifying it at all. Just on it's face, it doesn't seem to hold up as a generalization.

So while I totally agree with the gist of the whole thing, it seems to lack any worldview.

mattmaroon · 1 year ago

I'm fairly sure that's the group the WSJ was referring to as feeling entitled.

iigs · 1 year ago

Matt, I don't know if I agree or disagree with your assessment about unions, but I don't think the political tone of that paragraph furthers your point, and I think it would serve to alienate some percentage of your readership.

Given some thought, I think that the success of our information industry-- and thereby demand for talented workers -- has caused a run for talented workers. Because the productivity of workers in this field is variable, regular factory-type compensation doesn't work well; most everyone I know in this industry doesn't want to unionize because they feel they can do better "every man for himself" than collectively.

mattmaroon · 1 year ago

I'm not in favor of unions actually, but the Republicans have systematically destroyed them. I leave it to the reader to assess whether that is a good or bad thing.

Len-Vesper · 1 year ago

Excellent reflection on the current state and mind of the 'new' worker age. I sit in the same boat, making sure that I'm going to be rewarded well for what I do. While I don't demand management position, I do want to make sure I do well for myself without striking myself into the pits of burnout.

I work in virtualization and server architecture, and believe me there are bosses that just don't get that this stuff takes a hell of a lot out of you at the end of a day, and that despite the miracle of technology, it's not as simple as clicking 'next next next' and just turning it on. It's not installing quake on your pc, it's running enterprise level stuff, heh. (rant rant rant)

Good write, indeed, couldn't of put it better myself.

aerodyno · 1 year ago

Dude nice work. Please submit this as a letter to the editor -- I'm sure they'll accept it!

mattmaroon · 1 year ago

Done. Good idea, thanks.

kris · 1 year ago

Here, here. Thanks for the reply to The 'Trophy Kids' Go to Work. It made me slightly sick yesterday. I have worked for 60 year old men since I graduated from college and have been told stupid things like 'No, our company does not have time to build a website.' Why would I work hard when I could work smart and achieve better results?

mattmaroon · 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure the concept of working longer comes from the early industrial period. Back then, you did something like pulling levers or schlepping bricks for a living, so more hours meant more productivity, up to the level of your body's tolerance.

The human body is remarkably flexible in the amount of physical exertion it can perform. Someone used to working in manual labor can do 80 hours of work in a week with no sweat, whereas someone out of shape (me) wouldn't be able to do 10.

The brain doesn't have that sort of flexibility. It can gain endurance, but not on the level your body can.

Your Mom · 1 year ago

"Our 40 hours per week is a level of productivity that would have been unfathomable twenty years ago."

"Our desire to skip the long hours is not laziness; we’re simply concerned with efficiency in everything we do."

You hold yourself to a bar that you can effortlessly jump over and therefore you will always under achieve. That's one of the true issues older generations have with millennials. The whole "look I can do so much" attitude. You SHOULD be able to do MORE because of the "advances in education and communications technology" and yet your generation likes to rest on their laurels. The burnout excuse is a cop-out. You think that intellectual burnout is comparable to the completely rotten health our grandparents and parents had to endure in their jobs? You post confirms the article rather than provide a decent rebuttal. And this isn't coming from an old hag. I just missed the millennial classification and I have two younger siblings so I feel I know both sides of the coin equally well.

Wynand Winterbach · 1 year ago

"The burnout excuse is a cop-out. You think that intellectual burnout is comparable to the completely rotten health our grandparents and parents had to endure in their jobs?"

One of the points of this post is that there is no virtue in working yourself to death, especially when you're not achieving much more in 60 hours than you achieve in 40 hours.

If you have ever been a career programmer, you will know what burnout is.

I think the post pretty much rebuts the original article.

And this isn coming from a young whipper snapper. I just missed the millenial classification and I have two younger siblings (both of whom are millenials) and I know both sides of the coin equally well, and the coin is still currently weighted against those who prefer not work themselves to death.

rickd · 1 year ago

AMEN.

As someone born in the no-mans-land between "gen-x" and the "millenials" ('79) I can't tell you how sick I am of hearing "kids today!" This is the second time around for me and as a young worker it just makes me sick.

Check out what's possible when you work like we do- focus on results and forget the "traditional" office environment- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16040492/

tom saffell · 1 year ago

Good rebut - that article needed it. I think it raised all our hackles.

But I'm still left slightly unsatisfied. I think maybe we're still missing the root cause here. I'm with you on the idea that we're more ambitious, and that we have a "differing world-view". But I think in addition to that, the world is also genuinely different than for generations before us, in terms of: dominance of corporations; physical world-mobility; decline of religion. I think these things explain our so called 'sense of entitlement'.

dominance of corporations = we now work for fewer, larger companies, who are owned by distant shareholders. So when we're asked to 'go the extra mile' on something, we know that we're ultimately doing a favor to some distant shareholder (whom, by virtue of us not knowing, we don't much care for), so we feel less inclined to do it (and more entitled not to do it)

physical world mobility = we can now live far from where we grew up, and still make it back for thanks giving (and many of us do). So we are not physically surrounded by elders around whom we grew up. Most of the people for whom I have worked I had zero connection to outside the workplace. Again, this makes us less inclined to go the extra mile than if we worked in our home village where we have ~25 years of history.

decline of religion (please don't shoot me for this one) = religion has given people purpose and meaning (and many other things) through the ages. Part-and-parcel with that is a certain degree of unquestioningness, and resulting willingness to do what is asked of you. All based in a belief that there is a greater good, or great purpose to it all (it's also the easiest way to get soldiers to go to war). We are far less religious (on average) than previous generations.

In summary, our entitlement does stem from a different world view, but also from a different world. I believe our sense of entitlement is a natural and appropriate reaction to the world in which we live. And that is a world that was built by the generations before us. You reap what you sow.

tom

ann · 1 year ago

Eh there's also a basic demographics point: once the boomers start retiring in earnest, the demographic pyramid will start to move towards inversion (ie: from a position of more young people than old people to something much closer to more old people than young people).

So, ipso facto, there's going to be decreased labor supply moving forward, at least compared to the norm over the past two-three decades; ceteris paribus, the decreased labor supply will give labor increased negotiating power (unions or no).

The prospect of a more-demanding workforce is, to say the least, unpleasant for the owning classes; editorials like the above are part of an attempt to shame the young folk into (irrationally) refusing to drive as hard a bargain with their employers as possible.

greenfield · 1 year ago

Hey, I'm a so-called Gen-Xer (mid-thirties) and I enjoyed this little piece. Many of of us Gen Xers have been deeply, deeply, dissatisfied with corporate life. It is often mind-numbing and spirit-crushing. But there were simply not enough of us to overturn the regime. Those who resisted were simply fired and replaced. Your generation has a great numerical advantage and I'm glad to see this broad challenge to many dearly-held baby-boomer assumptions. Also, consider that many of your ideas about life and work (which I share as well), are not terribly original; indeed they are widely subscribed to in Europe where the motto is: "Work to live, not live to work."

GUY · 1 year ago

Great Article. I can safely say that it is mostly true. I have worked my @$$ off moving up the corporate ladder, working nights, very long shifts, etc. etc to get where I am today, but still have a long way to go. My older co-workers and bosses do recognize that, with my new-age training and experience, along with a strong work ethic, that yes, I can do in 1/2 an hour what it would take them 3-4 hours to accomplish. Sometimes this straps me with more work, but hey, I look good. Anyways, the point of my comment is that: I am waiting for these BBoomers to start retiring and get outta the way, so I can be CEO tomorrow, BUT, they have ridiculously F'd up the economy, and now may never retire, further exasperating me. If 40 hours in a week is prime productivity and 60 hours is just a waste of time, I propose that 40 YEARS in a career is prime and 60 YEARS is just a waste of everyone's time, in a professional environment. GO SPEND 20 YEARS <<insert hobby here>> OK? Everyone will be happier, and that's the main goal.

Dan · 1 year ago

Most important quote:

"The same will be true of us one day when our children enter the workforce. "

momo · 1 year ago

Wow, what hubris. Frankly speaking, my friends from other countries are shocked at how poorly educated Americans are these days, especially in math and science. My older friends (60+) laugh at how little young people know about how to actually build or fabricate things. If you think you're working smarter, not harder, you have no real concept of what working life was really like 60-70 years ago. Take a look at the studies being done that show the American workforce (which includes you) are working longer hours then most of the world. As a tech worker myself, let me ask you a question: "if the power goes out, what skills do you have that would make you useful?" My point is that you're not nearly as skilled as you might think. Your status in life is far more fragile then you realize, a lesson people who grew up in the '30's and '40's have never forgotten.



"If we seem to have high self-esteem, it’s because we’re better. Not intrinsically, but because we’re riding the rapidly accelerating wave of technological progress. Advances in education and communications technology that previous generations created have made us considerably more knowledgeable and productive than our parents were when they entered the workforce. In fact, in many ways we’re considerably more knowledgeable and productive than they are now."

mattmaroon · 1 year ago

That's funny, our colleges are full of foreigners. Our high schools and grade schools may suck, but our universities are still the best, and our college grads highly educated.

Working life 60 years ago was 60+ hours a week in a unionized factory job. The fact that the power going out makes tech jobs stall means nothing. It would have been the exact same for our grandparents working in a factory. Those machines didn't run on good will and sunshine, and neither does anything in any other country.

If you think being dependent on electricity makes us fragile then you must live in a bunker with your own generator and a 6 month supply of canned foods.

momo · 1 year ago

You forget that most of the population 60 years ago was agrarian. Life on the farm was work, but they took out plenty of time for hobbies and fun (at least, thats what my 3 or 4 generations of mid-western farmer family have told me).

I don't live in a bunker and thats exactly why I'm worried. I live in earthquake country and have seen what damage even a small earthquake can do. Given current geological forecasts, its very conceivable that we could have an earthquake severe enough to knock out power for a significant amount of time. I'm not counting on Federal aid after Katrina.

So what would you do? Do you have the skills and resourcefulness to live out such an emergency?

mattmaroon · 1 year ago

Our nation industrialized more than 60 years ago. We were not an agrarian society in 1948. You're simply wrong, possibly because you're confusing your family for a significant sample size, or because your timeline is off by over a century. My family is from the Midwest too, and they worked in rubber factories. Many worked in steel or automotive. Detroit has been a manufacturing city for over 150 years.

If anything, you should count on Federal aid more after Katrina. As our most recent hurricane season showed, nobody wants to look like Bush did then, not even him. It will be at least 20 years before politicians forget about that and don't overreact to every disaster.

Also, disaster preparedness is more than a little off-topic.

skmurphy · 1 year ago

I guess the difference between my 20's and my 40's is that in my 20's I was held back by outside events and the people around me and in my 40's I am held back by my own shortcomings and decisions.

Upon reflection, it was that way in my 20's as well.

It's a crap article full of crap generalizations that are true for every generation: you can find people who feel entitled and people who don't in every generation. I would encourage you to aim your considerable talents at more worthy targets.

By the way, the amount of technology change that your great grandparents saw--telephone, telegraph, automobile, antibiotics, television--in terms of its pervasive impact on life and business, is certainly on a par with the last 20 years.

Two quotes from folks born more than 100 years ago to point out that everything old is new again now.

"You get what you settle for." Emyln Williams

"It is a funny thing about life; if you refuse to accept anything but the best, you very often get it. " Somerset Maugham

mattmaroon · 1 year ago

Most of those technological changes had little effect on the workplace and didn't change how the vast majority of people made their incomes. But still, I'd say all of them combined were nowhere near on par with the last 20 years. The telegraph was invented long before my great grandparents were born (over 200 years ago) as was the telephone. My grandparents were born after the car was mass produced and penicillin was discovered. You're rolling many generations into one and comparing it against the last 20 years and it probably still fails.

skmurphy · 1 year ago

I did say great grandparents to set it one generation back, let's say from 1900 to 1950. The telephone, telegraph, and automobile all transformed the workplace. It takes about 30 years from the time a technology is introduced for it to have a full impact on society (including the workplace).

Paul David's "The Dynamo and the Computer" is good background on how existing capital and infrastructure has to age out before the full impact of a new technology can be assessed. A more recent work is "Technological revolutions and financial capital" by Carlota Perez which details the multi-decade timeline of new technology adoption and impact on a country.

It seems to me that the opportunity is to design new firms and new business models that exploit existing inventions whose full impact has yet to be realized. Perhaps that's what you are already doing.

I would like to hear more about how you would design new business structures (or adopt proven ones) that avoid some of the challenges you outline with inequitable distribution of effort/contribution and reward. What should real knowledge worker organizations look like, how can they be structured in way that's robust and long term stable in offering employees a career and be competitive in serving their customers.

Breck · 1 year ago

Amazing.

Will · 1 year ago

I'm 39 and I guess ahead of my time since I often think like the millenials. I was laid off of my first engineering job out of school after 14 months with the company. It was a blessing in disguise. It forced me to realize that there is no loyalty and that's ok. Nobody is owed a job or pension for their whole life. So I took control of my career, found a niche market in IT to exploit high hourly rates, and rarely have worked overtime. Because I get all my work done and then some ahead of time. Now I work from home, why, because I asked for it. I don't live to work, I use the money to fund my side internet projects which are fun. What it boils down to is taking control of your career and being empowered, not at the mercy of employers. Both employee and employer fulfill a role. You perform a task and they pay you. When it is no longer beneficial to either party, you move on.

RickM · 1 year ago

Matt,

There you go again. I live in the heartland of the union movement in Michigan. The unions weren't done in by the Republicans but by poor leadership. Quite frankly they outlived their usefulness.

The unions still control everything here and they've killed the states competitiveness and crippled our auto industry.

mattmaroon · 1 year ago

You're right, in a lot of ways they've hurt themselves. But they've also truly been attacked by the Republican Party.

StaceyD · 1 year ago

Well said.

StaceyD · 1 year ago

Matt Maroon I mean :)

Steven Wittens · 1 year ago

The truth is probably in between your blog post and the original article. While it is true that there are a lot of us 'millenials' who are extremely technologically savvy, I'm not so sure we are a majority in our generation.

Sure, a lot of us know how to im, blog, use facebook/myspace, etc... but how many truly understand how to leverage the power of modern digital communication to market, to educate or to evangelize?

Our exposure, at as young age, to a much wider array of topics (including adult ones) makes us more likely to speak our mind and ignore conventional hierarchies... but how many actually bother to do actual research – rather than just skim Wikipedia – to have an informed opinion?

As Shaun said above, this discussion only really applies to information technology workers. But outside that, there is another 'digital divide' forming that is alienating people who know how to do basic things on a computer (like surf or email), but fail to use those abilities productively and in an informed way. And that divide extends into the millenials too.

ismaelsobek · 1 year ago

I completely agree. While most of my peers are being painted by the media (Frontline, I'm glaring at you) as some sort of tech-gods, most of them really don't give a damn about how any of that stuff works as long as they can put garish backgrounds on their MySpace profiles. They have no fucking idea how lucky they are or powerful they could be, or how anything works. They don't know the difference between anything until they run into a roadblock, and then they only come out of their bubble long enough to fix the problem. I hate to say it, but a lot of them are just plain lazy. It sometimes makes me sad.

mattmaroon · 1 year ago

A lot of all generations are just plain lazy. That's not unusual. And the article was presumably speaking about professionals, which filters out most of the lazy.

Wil Schroter · 1 year ago

Matt, I'm kind of missing part of this argument. There's no question that we can all get more done in less time, millennials or not. So let’s take that off the table just for a moment. I understand that the millennials are more likely to inherently have a strong aptitude for these tools whereas their parents would have to learn them. Granted.

But let’s go beyond that. Let’s talk about the output of this generation. Not in terms of getting an hour of work done in ten minutes because you know better tools and shortcuts. I mean the successful implementation of this output.

In the last wave of Internet companies, and I’m just using these as one mark since it’s something we all know real well, I feel like we haven’t seen a lot of bona fide success from this generation yet. Facebook was clearly a wonderful example of a company that truly crushed it, but I haven’t much at that level coming from the same generation.

Comparatively the Gen X’ers (and beyond), in their heyday, created Google, Netscape, Yahoo, eBay, PayPal, Skype, etc. I remember Gen X’ers (I’m one of them) being called the slacker generation, but I think the output of that generation was pretty great.

If the millenials and Y’ers had come up with ten Facebooks in the last five years, and could say “look, we’re better, faster, and output is substantially more valuable” then I would be real excited about the output of this younger generation. I’m just not sure I’m seeing it yet.

Maybe it’s market conditions, maybe it’s because it takes time to create big companies, maybe it’s because I’m using the wrong examples. I’m just trying to point to a trend that tells me this generation has earned their rights based on their substantial output, not their rate of input.

Andrew Yates · 1 year ago

Wil,

All your couching "let's and maybe" speak aside, your argument is that the millennial generation has produced only frivolous things, and that Gen X has produced the giants of the Internet, and therefore older people deserve the service of younger people.

Wil Schroter · 1 year ago

Andrew, I'm not saying that at all. I'm asking whether all of the new tools and freedoms this generation has available has enabled them to create more quality output than before. It's not an indictment - it's an honest question.

If this generation is so capable, you would think the output would generate quite a bit more super companies than it has so far. Again, its early. I'm just curious what Matt's thoughts are on output.

mattmaroon · 1 year ago

I don't think internet startups are a good metric. But even if they are, plenty of successful ones have come from my generation, and we've had a decade or two less to work on them. YouTubers were either in my gen or very close to it. Facebook, Digg. Just a few off the top of my head.

More importantly, Google has a lot of my generation as employees.

Wil Schroter · 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure the founders of YouTube, MySpace, and Digg were all children of the 70's. I only used Internet startups because they seem to mature the fastest and benefit most greatly from the new tools that are available to them.

My original question was basically this - if the millennials bring more to the table than their parents did, where are we seeing it? I'm not condemning the generation, I love the entrepreneurial approach.

mattmaroon · 1 year ago

Late 70s. For some reason I thought Rose was older. So they're 3 years away from the early end. And they started those companies a few years ago.

I don't think you necessarily would see it much yet. I mean, if millenials make better IT workers than their parents, or graphic designers, or programmers (but not necessarily entrepreneurs, which I wouldn't claim) or any tech-intensive profession, where would you see it?

Wil Schroter · 1 year ago

That's what I'm trying to get my head around. I' m seeing this entire new generation that inherently has a great deal of new, useful skills, thanks to growing up with the Web. I would think that they would have churned out 10x the volume of the previous generation in new companies since they can get more done in less time based on the toolset available to them.

I can't think of any industry other than the Web where you'd see more signals of this new level of productivity.

Perhaps I'm tying the premise of new company productivity exclusively to the Founders, and not the teams of workers within those companies. But even then, I'm not sure I'm seeing this generation of companies do anything any more spectacular than the last one.

mattmaroon · 1 year ago

As mentioned before, it's too soon. Give them the 15 years you've given the previous generation to get started. Even the earliest of ours has only been out of college for 5.

Also, you can't ignore economic factors. We didn't get the Bubble. The last few years have been good, but not like back then.

Jon Kepler · 1 year ago

I understand why you'd want to write a rebuttal and, being 23 myself, it's nice to see input from both sides. However, I still feel that there are an awful lot of unjustifiably arrogant Millennials out there. They're the ones who work in the fast food industry, live at home, and can't afford a car, yet buy Louis Vuitton handbags. Lil Wayne is also their idol-of-the-moment, though it's almost November so it's probably time for the next guy. Walk around any university campus and you'll see the Ugg boots and poorly modified Hondas as proof - the majority of them believe they are celebrities.

mattmaroon · 1 year ago

I don't think that's arrogance so much as superficiality, worship of the consumerism they've had crammed down their throats all their lives (our generation has been blitzed by advertising on a greater level than ever before) and very poor spending habits.

If anything, it's the opposite of arrogance, since it stems from low sense of self worth. I've found that as my self-esteem increased from low to high, that behavior did the opposite.

Jon Kepler · 1 year ago

I guess I see your point, and less than wonderful behavior often corrects itself over time as everyone gets older and wiser anyway.

I completely agree with your statements about us watching what has happened to our parents. I've based my entire career thus far around avoiding a fate similar to that of my parents and extended family, and so far it's working.

Ben Gray · 1 year ago

I've worked physical activity at 45 hours a week and I've work 55 hours as an IT worker. You couldn't pay me to go back to lifting shit all day.
Also, I'd have to admit, no one "works" 40 hours a week in IT. They code a bit, get a coffee, walk around, clear your head, get back to it. Code a bit, check the news, etc.
Also, for every study that says "working more than 40 is counter-productive" or "casual dress brings more productivity", I've got a study that yells "Wear a goddamn tie and don't go home until the job is done".
BTW, I'm 27, I agree with a LOT of what's said here (I hate hearing this sort of blame-apportioning nonsense from the generation that proudly claims it will spend the kids inheritance), I just thought a few viewpoints were a little narrow perhaps?

whizbang2003 · 1 year ago

You make some useful and partially correct observations.

When the employer no longer retains any sense of obligation toward the employee for a job well done except the employers short-term interest the 30 years ago model breaks down. A job well done doesn't get you a pension, a gold watch, or job security.

You pat yourself on the back a little too enthusiastically, and you have an inflated sense of self.

As an "old" who hand carved his first computer out of oak, I know more about software, networking, hardware, and how to be productive then you pompous little snot-rags with your superficial, narrow, and surface skillz.

Burn out. Don't make me laugh. You have a limited amount of experience, a limited amount of knowledge, a limited amount of patience, and if you can't solve a problem quickly the attention deficit kicks in and you give up. I WILL hang in there and fix things.

If only I could get a job.

osbjmg · 1 year ago

Casual dress, working smarter, no company loyalty - I agree to all of that. Unions...not so much, but I'm open to seeing it first hand. The truth is you will never make money while working for anyone else, unless maybe in sales. If you are better, you can be your own boss and save your money. If you are 9-5'ing it you may still be able to save enough, but the government being in charge of who gets what - bad idea. If you are entitled, ask for it at work - but don't bridge that gab into asking it of your government. They will gladly assume the role of coddling us at the expense of ourselves, until everyone is equal - regardless of effort and intellect. This is because we are afraid to publicly say: I worked harder, or I am smarter, I deserve to be paid more than you because of this.

Just sayin'

Ashamed of my generation. · 1 year ago

I'm part of the generation and let me say - we're lazy no wait - the majority of the generation is lazy and therefore I thank you because you are making it easier for me to move up the chain. Let me also point out that while jeans may "boost" productivity that is a childish mentality that I'll do less if I don't get what I want and just goes back to showing how spoiled you are and how much I don't want to hire you.

Bob Knightly · 1 year ago

I agree with a lot of this, and in a way I welcome some of the cynicism since there needs to be some checks and balances with the "con game" that has gone on for generations.

But my question which I would love to see a follow-up post on--if you're so inclined--is what about the exceptions?

Apple, Pixar, etc. don't work 40 hours a week, and they are the peek of creativity and effectiveness. They are absolutely the best at what they do, creative without peer, and they are 60+ hour work weeks. (Minimum.)

I guess where you lost me was the absoluteness of this. At 41 hours a week, are you less productive? 42? 45? 48?

Also, I think the other piece is the attitude. Why do people assume they can be CEO or a leader of 100 people at the beginning. You say this is an area of weakness--and I think you are correct--but where is the common sense? In a way, I think this is where some of the criticism is. I

Anyway, thanks for the post. It was an interesting read.

Alaina · 10 months ago

Indeed, and let us not forget that the monotonous "traditional" jobs the author insists we should accept have only been part of American culture since the 1830s. Before that, division of labor was considered un-American. (see Wilentz, Chants Democratic)

Ben Rowe · 9 months ago

Amen. Great post Matt. Great Post

s · 1 year ago

You may work in a company doing the work, but what about the founders of the company? Many have taken huge risks in starting a company. Instead of getting a comfortable job, they risked everything for an idea. Don't you think that entitles them to a larger share of the profit? They take all the risks here. The only risk you take, is that you may have to look for another job...

Ben · 1 year ago

In a startup, yes. At GM (or any other corporation), no. The CEO at GM has almost no risk. The worst thing that happens to him is he fucks up and the company tanks and he gets a few million in a severance package.