For some reason reading Talin's article made me really enraged.
If you read it you will realize quickly that she is ready to blame everything else but herself.
Unfortunately she will be used by the media to portray the wrong picture of Millennials.
Whatever attributes she has - is hers and hers only. It could be due to parenting, it could be due to her environment, etc. But please do not use her as a picture of the average Millennial.
How dare she complain about the meager scraps she's been thrown. The nerve! If she wanted a good job, she should have racked up a lot of dept and rolled the dice. You can't blame employers for paying minimum wage when there are so many desperate people who will take her place after all. That would be unamerican! AmIRight?
> You can't blame employers for paying minimum wage
Some jobs pay more than others. Some jobs pay less than others. Unless you are arguing for completely equal pay then some people are going to have jobs that pay less than other people.
Unskilled phone-answerers have always made shit wages.
I see a lot of people in this thread suggesting (or at least hinting) that there was some mythical Golden Age in which a telephone jockey got paid something other than the tiniest pittance allowed by law and/or market forces.
Maybe she is complaining too much but when I was in my twenties people actually were paid OK money even for "low-end" jobs (even startups offered better stock options compared to now). I think it's just disrespectful when a company pays its people starvation wages. I guess this is another side effect of inequality: Companies want their workers for free while spending insane amounts on offices, executives and buying other companies.
Together with student loans, sky-high house prices and employers wanting them to work for almost free, I understand that people in their twenties are down on the system.
She lives in one the most expensive cities on the planet. I would love to live there but I don't, even on an engineer's salary, because the cost is ridiculous. If she wants it easier, she should move to the Midwest. I suggest Minnesota, we have the lowest unemployment rate in the country.
"Maybe she is complaining too much but when I was in my twenties people actually were paid OK money even for "low-end" jobs "
I suspect I am a lot older than you, and I don't remember any period in which an entry-level customer service job paid enough money to support a roommate or relative-free apartment, much less in one of the most expensive cities on the planet.
Curious how you define a "low-end" job, and what year this was.
I've lived in the Bay Area my entire life, and at her age, over ten years ago, I never had to live with less than 3 roommates. Things like saving for retirement, vacations, or emergencies were laughably impossible. And the kicker is: I made more than her, about double minimum wage ($15/hr, full-time with benefits, circa 2004). By no means should you assume I am complaining -- I didn't know anyone my age who wasn't in a similar situation.
Now I made nearly twice that, and I still have to choose between renting a room in a house with 5 other people, and being able to save money for retirement/etc by living at home.
Somewhen in the 1990s and 2000s I noticed a trend that even companies with tons of VC money wanted to get labor for free. I started freelancing in the 90s and back then in general companies accepted that they had to pay some market rate. Then slowly a lot of them started lowballing like crazy.
The latest trend seems to expect that job applicants spend hours, days or weeks working for them for free before being hired. That's what probation time is for.
Unfortunately tech people are OK with being exploited. I don't see too many lawyers or MBAs working at minimum wage or working for free to "get exposure".
I'm Gen X. I did a ton of pretty crappy jobs in my early 20's while I worked out what I wanted. Building site labouring, warehouse picking, farm work, retail work, you name it I did it. During that time, on the wages I earned from those jobs, I could afford to rent a (small and pretty crappy) place to live, eat 3 meals a day, maintain a car (though I ended up ditching it in favour of public transport) and have some money left over for entertainment.
I never needed to work multiple jobs, and while I was never able to take holidays or be extravagant, it was an OK life.
I was in the UK rather than the US, but I'm not sure that makes any difference.
When did we accept that life in your early 20's needed to be so hard?
"When did we accept that life in your early 20's needed to be so hard?"
When was it ever otherwise? Sounds like you had it pretty good compared to the previous generation at the same age. Better still than the generation before that. How "easy" does it have to get before the perception will become that it's not hard?
I see the problem as one of perspective. Unless we've actually been through tough times, we feel we're having a tough time.
Well, there certainly used to be less economic inequality, and wages have not risen in real terms for a long time in the US. So I would not be so sure that everything is steadily getting better in this area.
Things have changed. In the 70s and 80s there was a spirit that things should become better for everybody. Then things changed and the motto was that the top people should take as much as they could get.
Even during the dotcom bubble there was a sense that this would be good for everybody. Obviously that was nonsense in hindsight. But now people have totally given up on the idea that things should improve for all of us. If you somehow didn't luck into the right job it's your problem that you don't make money.
Programmers watch out: Right now we are riding high but our day will come too when people will tell you "Who could be so stupid to learn coding.".
Actually my parents' generation had it even easier. For example, baby boomer university students in the UK paid no tuition fees and were paid a grant by the government to go to University. When I went to uni that grant was changed to a loan. Now there's tuition fees on top.
Same for unemployment benefits. Stories from the 60's and 70's show British counterculture surviving pretty well on benefits. When I did a 6-month stint of unemployment in 1990 it was still possible - the state paid my rent and enough money to feed myself and buy cigarettes and a few beers. Now it's a brutally harsh life on benefits.
I know that's only examples of state handouts, but it's an indication of attitudes. Again, when did we get so convinced that life had to be so tough?
When the middle class has it hard, they become less sympathetic. I think Thalia made a series of poor financial decisions, but there still needs to be some kind of safety net.
I'm in the US, as were my parents, and theirs. Perhaps we're also talking about two different things: me about work; you about education.
To my recollection, it's always been the case that the first few years of employment after education come with harshness due to lack of experience. Maybe you had to live with parents for a couple of years. Maybe you had to use a friend's couch for awhile. Maybe you had to work a menial job for a bit. Just because one has graduated with a degree doesn't automatically entitle them to the nice apartment overlooking the beach and a sip of a expensive bourbon every night.
I suppose in my corner of society, things are indeed better with each generation. (I'm nearly certain we've never had a safety net quite like you describe in the UK in the 60s and 70s.) It's not that "it has to be tough" it's just that "it's never going to be easy." And without some perspective, "easy" is not so objective.
I agree, I look back on what I did as a couple of years of harshness, character-building stuff that made me the man I am today, etc, etc.
That's not the same as what we're hearing from the millenials. We can choose to write that off as the whinging of an "entitled" generation. Or we can choose to listen to them and compare their stories to ours.
Talia made some mistakes. That's what your 20's are all about. But she's working a full-time job and is unable to eat properly. I don't think that's acceptable.
By writing her off as an entitled whinger I think we're putting our hands over our ears, going "lalalalalala" and ignoring a real problem in our society.
No, but I'd bet they used to be able to before it turned into a nice commuter suburb for lawyers. Which was the point of the post you responded to - that this used to be possible and isn't now, and you attempted to say that something completely different was actually never possible.
If this article would've been written in a more positive tone but managed to maintain the (rightfully) strong points it would have been much more effective.
On one hand I do agree that she walked into the situation (living by herself, accepting that wage) with eyes wide open. But on the other there are a few valid points in both Talia's and Stefanie's letters that are, well, valid and useful observations and suggestions.
However, they're both lost in the entirely immature way both of these people went about expressing them. Both of these letters are full of erratic bursts of emotion, irrelevant sidelines and unbacked up statements.
They're both just rants, one a little more refined and sanctimonious than the other, but rants none the less.
When I was Talia's age I was pulling fourteen hour shifts on the slime line in an Alaskan fish cannery. The current median wage for that job is $26,000/year.
Fourteen hour shifts? Fourteen hour shifts!? In my day we'd work from 1AM until 3AM the following morning, go to sleep for -2 hours, wake up and do it all over again! We were paid in 19th century New Zealand shillings and had to pay all of it back for living on the boss's premises!
I don't believe just because something was done one way before, means it should affect how things are now. If we believe the way "something is" is fundamentally wrong - just because it has been that way (or worse) should not provide be a valid argument against said "something".
Yes, fourteen hour shifts. For real. The fish guts and freezing cold water were also for real. As was the rusty trailer I shared with four other guys.
The point here being that Talia, with her (now former) job answering the phone in a nice warm room, and commuting to her nice warm apartment in the nice trendy Bay Area, has it better than probably 90% of the human race has it today, much less in the past.
Her apparently genuine surprise at being fired after publicly slagging off her employer is just the icing on her entitlement cake.
We should really compare "like with like". Yes, you're adding perspective to the argument. Perspective though fair, does not add value to the argument. It simply dismisses it altogether.
Example:
John works a median job, earning a median salary and pays a median amount for rent and living costs. However John's boss has recently made him work 2 additional hours of overtime each day for the past 3 months.
But on the other hand.. Mary is a 4 year old African toddler who works 20 hours a day sifting through muddy water for specs of diamond. If she falls asleep or passes out she will surely drown. If she collects too small amount of diamond for her boss, she will have a finger amputated.
John should not complain and be happy to not live in such terrible conditions.
--
I believe Talia was right to complain. However bringing her employer into the complaint, in a very targeting and "shaming" manner, was not a smart move (current career-wise). She works in conditions thousands of people are familiar with across the world. Her message resonates. But the only reason it is heard, is because she went about it the way she did.
If she had posted an anonymous, employer-anonymous article with the same content.. This would not be news. There may be a discussion between 5-10 people on the internet, but no major news site would publish on it.
Was she right in doing what she did? It depends on your perspective. I believe it is completely fair, she didn't fabricate her statements - simply saying (though somewhat emotive) facts. The company she works for on the other hand wouldn't see it that way.
You're setting up straw men. I was comparing two unskilled, entry-level jobs in the United States, so African toddlers don't really enter into it.
If Talia had more sense and less entitlement, she would have found some roommates or (failing that) not taken a job that didn't pay enough to support her. She wasn't forced to move to the Bay Area at gunpoint, dude.
I do have sympathy for those people who've been living in the Bay Area for a long time, and have had a heavy squeeze put on them by the rising prices. That doesn't apply to Talia, though.
> If Talia had more sense and less entitlement, she would have found some roommates or (failing that) not taken a job that didn't pay enough to support her. She wasn't forced to move to the Bay Area at gunpoint, dude.
I agree with you here, but I still don't think comparing a 14-hour-day fish-cannery job in Alaska (which if it's anything like it is here, is also seasonal and catered for "travellers") to a cushy CS job in the Bay Area is remotely "similar".
No, I had to have an off-season job. That rusty trailer wasn't cheap, and food was also quite expensive in that location (some canneries provide room and board, at a high rate, of course, but the one I worked in didn't).
Talia's article enrages me. I've been off worse than her (similar ages, lower pay, higher portion of income to living costs and MUCH longer hours), but the way she's gone about it screams of oh-poor-me.
The fact of the matter is, we both made the decision to do what we did. No one forced you to work for that company. No one forced you to move where you did.
SV is an extreme among extremes. If you didn't know what to expect, you didn't research or plan. If you did, but now regret your decision.. You're human.
I doubt she ran this idea or article by many people, and likely posted in in a very emotional state. She should have just given notice and left. Then wrote about her experience.
Because she'll likely find out that she won't regret it. I certainly didn't. I came out with thicker skin, many contacts and a newfound respect for people who did that day in, day out out of necessity. I quit when I needed to, not potentially tanking my future career (although nothing a name change couldn't fix).
Another comment I read on here about this likely being a career move (to writing) was likely right. In which case.. Well done.
So now, living on your own is a luxury. Next will be access to water? I understand that the US is lacking proper cheap housing, but this advice is pretty ridiculous.
As a bonus, if you look poor, you will be denied high profile jobs. This is the likely reason for the bourbon image, not bad spending practises.
46 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] threadLooks like she lost both of those somewhere along the way.
If you read it you will realize quickly that she is ready to blame everything else but herself.
Unfortunately she will be used by the media to portray the wrong picture of Millennials.
Whatever attributes she has - is hers and hers only. It could be due to parenting, it could be due to her environment, etc. But please do not use her as a picture of the average Millennial.
Some jobs pay more than others. Some jobs pay less than others. Unless you are arguing for completely equal pay then some people are going to have jobs that pay less than other people.
I see a lot of people in this thread suggesting (or at least hinting) that there was some mythical Golden Age in which a telephone jockey got paid something other than the tiniest pittance allowed by law and/or market forces.
That... is not the case.
Nice straw man.
Together with student loans, sky-high house prices and employers wanting them to work for almost free, I understand that people in their twenties are down on the system.
I suspect I am a lot older than you, and I don't remember any period in which an entry-level customer service job paid enough money to support a roommate or relative-free apartment, much less in one of the most expensive cities on the planet.
I've lived in the Bay Area my entire life, and at her age, over ten years ago, I never had to live with less than 3 roommates. Things like saving for retirement, vacations, or emergencies were laughably impossible. And the kicker is: I made more than her, about double minimum wage ($15/hr, full-time with benefits, circa 2004). By no means should you assume I am complaining -- I didn't know anyone my age who wasn't in a similar situation.
Now I made nearly twice that, and I still have to choose between renting a room in a house with 5 other people, and being able to save money for retirement/etc by living at home.
The latest trend seems to expect that job applicants spend hours, days or weeks working for them for free before being hired. That's what probation time is for.
Unfortunately tech people are OK with being exploited. I don't see too many lawyers or MBAs working at minimum wage or working for free to "get exposure".
I never needed to work multiple jobs, and while I was never able to take holidays or be extravagant, it was an OK life.
I was in the UK rather than the US, but I'm not sure that makes any difference.
When did we accept that life in your early 20's needed to be so hard?
When was it ever otherwise? Sounds like you had it pretty good compared to the previous generation at the same age. Better still than the generation before that. How "easy" does it have to get before the perception will become that it's not hard?
I see the problem as one of perspective. Unless we've actually been through tough times, we feel we're having a tough time.
Even during the dotcom bubble there was a sense that this would be good for everybody. Obviously that was nonsense in hindsight. But now people have totally given up on the idea that things should improve for all of us. If you somehow didn't luck into the right job it's your problem that you don't make money.
Programmers watch out: Right now we are riding high but our day will come too when people will tell you "Who could be so stupid to learn coding.".
Same for unemployment benefits. Stories from the 60's and 70's show British counterculture surviving pretty well on benefits. When I did a 6-month stint of unemployment in 1990 it was still possible - the state paid my rent and enough money to feed myself and buy cigarettes and a few beers. Now it's a brutally harsh life on benefits.
I know that's only examples of state handouts, but it's an indication of attitudes. Again, when did we get so convinced that life had to be so tough?
I'm pretty sure the divide is now razor thin: either you're pretty rich, or poor...
To my recollection, it's always been the case that the first few years of employment after education come with harshness due to lack of experience. Maybe you had to live with parents for a couple of years. Maybe you had to use a friend's couch for awhile. Maybe you had to work a menial job for a bit. Just because one has graduated with a degree doesn't automatically entitle them to the nice apartment overlooking the beach and a sip of a expensive bourbon every night.
I suppose in my corner of society, things are indeed better with each generation. (I'm nearly certain we've never had a safety net quite like you describe in the UK in the 60s and 70s.) It's not that "it has to be tough" it's just that "it's never going to be easy." And without some perspective, "easy" is not so objective.
That's not the same as what we're hearing from the millenials. We can choose to write that off as the whinging of an "entitled" generation. Or we can choose to listen to them and compare their stories to ours.
Talia made some mistakes. That's what your 20's are all about. But she's working a full-time job and is unable to eat properly. I don't think that's acceptable.
By writing her off as an entitled whinger I think we're putting our hands over our ears, going "lalalalalala" and ignoring a real problem in our society.
Not really. In contrast to Talia, I'll wager you weren't trying to live in Kensington or Knightsbridge while making those wages, correct?
No one with a US citizenship and a college education has a right to complain.
You can go live in any city you want and work at any job, start a business or get unemployment checks.
Where I come from people die crossing the mountains & deserts just for a chance to pick the vegetables that Talia couldn't buy.
Give me a break.
On one hand I do agree that she walked into the situation (living by herself, accepting that wage) with eyes wide open. But on the other there are a few valid points in both Talia's and Stefanie's letters that are, well, valid and useful observations and suggestions.
However, they're both lost in the entirely immature way both of these people went about expressing them. Both of these letters are full of erratic bursts of emotion, irrelevant sidelines and unbacked up statements.
They're both just rants, one a little more refined and sanctimonious than the other, but rants none the less.
So, yeah.
(Sorry, had to throw a Monty Python reference there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo)
I don't believe just because something was done one way before, means it should affect how things are now. If we believe the way "something is" is fundamentally wrong - just because it has been that way (or worse) should not provide be a valid argument against said "something".
Kind of fits in to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
The point here being that Talia, with her (now former) job answering the phone in a nice warm room, and commuting to her nice warm apartment in the nice trendy Bay Area, has it better than probably 90% of the human race has it today, much less in the past.
Her apparently genuine surprise at being fired after publicly slagging off her employer is just the icing on her entitlement cake.
Example:
John works a median job, earning a median salary and pays a median amount for rent and living costs. However John's boss has recently made him work 2 additional hours of overtime each day for the past 3 months.
But on the other hand.. Mary is a 4 year old African toddler who works 20 hours a day sifting through muddy water for specs of diamond. If she falls asleep or passes out she will surely drown. If she collects too small amount of diamond for her boss, she will have a finger amputated.
John should not complain and be happy to not live in such terrible conditions.
--
I believe Talia was right to complain. However bringing her employer into the complaint, in a very targeting and "shaming" manner, was not a smart move (current career-wise). She works in conditions thousands of people are familiar with across the world. Her message resonates. But the only reason it is heard, is because she went about it the way she did.
If she had posted an anonymous, employer-anonymous article with the same content.. This would not be news. There may be a discussion between 5-10 people on the internet, but no major news site would publish on it.
Was she right in doing what she did? It depends on your perspective. I believe it is completely fair, she didn't fabricate her statements - simply saying (though somewhat emotive) facts. The company she works for on the other hand wouldn't see it that way.
If Talia had more sense and less entitlement, she would have found some roommates or (failing that) not taken a job that didn't pay enough to support her. She wasn't forced to move to the Bay Area at gunpoint, dude.
I do have sympathy for those people who've been living in the Bay Area for a long time, and have had a heavy squeeze put on them by the rising prices. That doesn't apply to Talia, though.
I agree with you here, but I still don't think comparing a 14-hour-day fish-cannery job in Alaska (which if it's anything like it is here, is also seasonal and catered for "travellers") to a cushy CS job in the Bay Area is remotely "similar".
The fact of the matter is, we both made the decision to do what we did. No one forced you to work for that company. No one forced you to move where you did.
SV is an extreme among extremes. If you didn't know what to expect, you didn't research or plan. If you did, but now regret your decision.. You're human.
I doubt she ran this idea or article by many people, and likely posted in in a very emotional state. She should have just given notice and left. Then wrote about her experience.
Because she'll likely find out that she won't regret it. I certainly didn't. I came out with thicker skin, many contacts and a newfound respect for people who did that day in, day out out of necessity. I quit when I needed to, not potentially tanking my future career (although nothing a name change couldn't fix).
Another comment I read on here about this likely being a career move (to writing) was likely right. In which case.. Well done.
As a bonus, if you look poor, you will be denied high profile jobs. This is the likely reason for the bourbon image, not bad spending practises.
When the peasants (employees) complain that they cannot afford bread (groceries), the proper royal (CEO) response should be: Let them eat rice.