Narcissists in Neverland

You can tell this article was written by someone not in the thirty and under bracket. Their hypothesis suggests that wanting to make more money is somehow more noble than trying to find happiness in your life. Hummmm...I think I just read another newsweek article about money buying happiness and guess what they concluded?! Anyway, the parents whole still support their grown children are doing so because its their choice. They raised their kids this way and are now "reaping" the consequences of the actions. So What?

Enter Your Comment

You are all squares

This article is completely ridiculous. What is the most depressing thing, is that the author of this article is encouraging a dying out-dated notion that common-sense means making a whole lot of money. When you all perish from this earth, and a new generation is finally free to pursue making a difference in the world without having to live up to the psychologically abusive and narrow-minded monetary expectations of success, we will be a step in the direction of achieving a better world. If ending the pursuit of your passions means growing up, you all need to die off.

I don't know if each generation is much different from its predecessor. The only change is its reliance on mom and dad over the years. Is that a crime? I think that's up to mom and dad to decide and ultimately act upon.

Just goes to show you.... all the Y-ers are still whining....

As a reluctant member of generation-x I have to say that this article is pretty funny. I guess responsibility means spending my life and energy making someone else's better, like tying myself down to a mortgage, kids, career, wife, blah, blah, blah. I don't care how the rest of you get along because so many people have gone out of their way to make my life a whole lot of fun, (I.E. paying into a social security fund that will earn me bupkis) Yes, I've watched my parents slave for a career that is only too happy to throw them under the bus when they were no longer useful. Enjoy your lives gen yers cuz Mickey loves ya.

This article is garbage. Baby boomers and Gen-Y'ers grew up in an entirely different society than that of the Gen-X'ers today. You cannot seriously attempt to compare these generalized age ranges in the same light. How many Gen-X'ers and Baby Boomers went to college? How many needed to go to college? Those that did go to college were not paying nearly as much as students today. Were they paying $900 a semester for books? NO! This is a generation that is much smarter and balancing much more than the people who have been lucky enough to position themselves to collect a social security check once they decide to retire. We all know who is paying for that, our youth. Are they ever going to see a dime? No. It takes a lot more to get by today than it did in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. This is a problem that is much larger than the simple conclusion of selfishness our genius sociologist Jean Twenge worked so very hard to come up with. And yes, that is sarcasm. Today, there is much more competition for fewer jobs, that pay less. With the weak effort made to produce this point of view, I would suspect that it is coming from someone who obviously did not have to deal with the same difficulties that exist today. The effort put into this article obviously shows that this is the product of a dinosaur that knows nothing about what it takes to "cope" today. My advice, Ms. Twenge and Ms. Vencat is to retire now, because you and your opinions are obsolete. Today's grade - F.

This article is garbage. Baby boomers and Gen-Y'ers grew up in an entirely different society than that of the Gen-X'ers today. You cannot seriously attempt to compare these generalized age ranges in the same light. How many Gen-X'ers and Baby Boomers went to college? How many needed to go to college? Those that did go to college were not paying nearly as much as students today. Were they paying $900 a semester for books? NO! This is a generation that is much smarter and balancing much more than the people who have been lucky enough to position themselves to collect a social security check once they decide to retire. We all know who is paying for that, our youth. Are they ever going to see a dime? No. It takes a lot more to get by today than it did in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. This is a problem that is much larger than the simple conclusion of selfishness our genius sociologist Jean Twenge worked so very hard to come up with. And yes, that is sarcasm. Today, there is much more competition for fewer jobs, that pay less. With the weak effort made to produce this point of view, I would suspect that it is coming from someone who obviously did not have to deal with the same difficulties that exist today. The effort put into this article obviously shows that this is the product of a dinosaur that knows nothing about what it takes to "cope" today. My advice, Ms. Twenge and Ms. Vencat is to retire now, because you and your opinions are obsolete. Today's grade - F.

Enter Your Comment

I have so many problems with this article, I don't know where to start, but I'll give it a shot. First, since when is humanitarian work considered more selfish than just taking care of oneself with blinders against the problems of the world? Yes, I'm one of those Gen-Yers who is abroad doing humanitarian work rather than having a steady job. I'm also one of those 9% getting a graduate degree. According to the article, I'm doing it because I have bad parents who told me I could be something great if I work really hard.

I don't want kids and I'm not concerned about getting married right at this moment, because I have plenty of time. Previous generations had lower life expectancies than our generation, so I don't feel it's necessary to just use those extra years of life to work some more when I'm old. It makes more sense to enjoy it when you're young. In the middle ages, people got married when they were 12 and died when they were 30; times have changed, and the age of marriage and having kids has been getting higher consistently; this isn't an anomaly.

Furthermore, once you're married and have kids, you can't run off to Indonesia to help tsunami victims. People in third world countries are going to be better off now that there are more people willing to volunteer and help.

Lastly, in America we do (and should continue to) set high goals for ourselves. Yes, as a child I was told I could be whatever I wanted, and I still believe that I could be president if I really wanted. What do we get from believing less? Mediocrity? That's not how this country became great. It's better to set high goals and not achieve them all than to decide that all you want in life is a steady job, spouse, and kids and accomplish it. The person with high goals can achieve that and more. People have settled down and had kids since the beginning of time. It's not a major accomplishment; it's how most species continue their existence on this earth. I want more for myself than that, and I think that's a good thing.

I have so many problems with this article, I don't know where to start, but I'll give it a shot. First, since when is humanitarian work considered more selfish than just taking care of oneself with blinders against the problems of the world? Yes, I'm one of those Gen-Yers who is abroad doing humanitarian work rather than having a steady job. I'm also one of those 9% getting a graduate degree. According to the article, I'm doing it because I have bad parents who told me I could be something great if I work really hard.

I don't want kids and I'm not concerned about getting married right at this moment, because I have plenty of time. Previous generations had lower life expectancies than our generation, so I don't feel it's necessary to just use those extra years of life to work some more when I'm old. It makes more sense to enjoy it when you're young. In the middle ages, people got married when they were 12 and died when they were 30; times have changed, and the age of marriage and having kids has been getting higher consistently; this isn't an anomaly.

Furthermore, once you're married and have kids, you can't run off to Indonesia to help tsunami victims. People in third world countries are going to be better off now that there are more people willing to volunteer and help.

Lastly, in America we do (and should continue to) set high goals for ourselves. Yes, as a child I was told I could be whatever I wanted, and I still believe that I could be president if I really wanted. What do we get from believing less? Mediocrity? That's not how this country became great. It's better to set high goals and not achieve them all than to decide that all you want in life is a steady job, spouse, and kids and accomplish it. The person with high goals can achieve that and more. People have settled down and had kids since the beginning of time. It's not a major accomplishment; it's how most species continue their existence on this earth. I want more for myself than that, and I think that's a good thing.

Since we are generalizing Gen-Y let's take a look at those baby-boomers. Their entitlement mentality and I want more money lifestyle has been observed and rejected by the current generation. We have seen that money doesn't buy happiness. While some take it to an extreme there are others who want to succeed at life. Baby boomers have succeeded at making money and gathering all the comforts that money and mortgages can pile around them. Money didn't buy more life or more happiness. In fact, now they are downright disappointed and cranky. They didn't take care of their parents (they took care of themselves), they didn't take care of their kids ( they paid the babysitter or the cable guy) and now they want to depend on the next generation to take care of them. People will always want what they can't have. Gen Y grew up watching their parents choose themselves. Gen Y is copying that. Baby boomers wanted money. Gen Y wants quality of life (doesn't necessarily mean a lot of money). Let's hope Gen Next can find the balance.

This one of the least thoughtful, reactionary articles I've read yet in the genre of "generational oversimplification" journalism. America is too expensive to exist in unless you were middle-class, white, and got in on the game forty plus years ago which, as you can tell, was impossible for anyone of this generation. This is typical media establishment nonsense that wants to scapegoat fictionalized "liberal values" such as "individuality" as being the root source of all social problems, instead of economic issues created by generations of misguided if not outright sociopathic conservative policies. Thanks so much, guys, for this new helping of responsible web-exclusive journalism (that was sarcasm -- a tone us young kids use when taking a break from sharing each others' dreams every day at the water cooler at our "middle class" jobs that barely allow us to pay rent).

"Gen-Y'ers" don't like to be generalized or labelled with stupid names. Speaking as one, I don't know anyone over 21 who still lives with their parents. Not to mention I am almost 30, have had a college degree for a better part of the decade, and have yet to clear $35K/year. I guess that's what us hard workers get as a reward for not living with or relying on mom and dad, and not doing whatever we feel like whenever we feel like it. I would also like to buy a house, but I have never been able to afford one thanks to all of the baby boomers who bought up all of their investment properties and drove the prices through the roof. At least we have been handed down an effective and efficient government. NOT! (that's what we Gen Y'ers say to each other to be young and hip) Elders, you are the ones who dug this hole. Good luck with your social security. What a dumb article. The youth is the problem, yeah right.

"Gen-Y'ers" don't like to be generalized or labeled with stupid names. Speaking as one, I don't know anyone over 21 who still lives with their parents. Not to mention I am almost 30, have had a college degree for a better part of the decade, and have yet to clear $35K/year. I guess that's what us hard workers get as a reward for not living with or relying on mom and dad, and not doing whatever we feel like whenever we feel like it. I would also like to buy a house, but I have never been able to afford one thanks to all of the baby boomers who bought up all of their investment properties and drove the prices through the roof. At least we have been handed down an effective and efficient government. NOT! (that's what we Gen Y'ers say to each other to be young and hip) Elders, you are the ones who dug this hole. Good luck with your social security. What a dumb article. The youth is the problem, yeah right. Typical Newsweek disinformation.

I have three stepchildren and a 4-year-old of my own. Two of my stepchildren are in their twenties. The elder of the two worked part time while attending school part time. She is now nearly done with her B.A. and has been accepted to law school. My wife and I helped her but could not afford to support her completely. Her younger brother is also working his way through school. He moved into a place of his own right after graduation from high school and went to school part time while working part time. A couple of months ago, living expenses in San Francisco got to be too much for him and he was faced with a choice of mortgaging his future with student loans or giving up on school. My wife offered to let him move back with us in Southern California, work a local job and save up money for the rest of this semester. He would re-enroll in a local college next semester and continue to live with us until his financial conditions change or he finishes his degree. He took us up on the offer and is now saving his paychecks for school while living with us. Since my wife is home with our 4-year old and I recently gave up on a low paid but satisfying career myself to move into sales, we have enough to cover the mortgage, basic expenses, and help a the elder two kids a little. We cannot fund an entire education at today's prices for either of them. We are afraid to take out student loans as we don't know if we could repay them while takeing care of the mortgage. We do not want to see them take out the excessive amounts of student loans required to fully fund a college education. We don't want to see them in she same trap we fell into (stuck under staggering student loan debt until we were finally able to pay them off and subject ourselves to a crushing mortgage). Unfortunately, I make enough to disqualify the younger of the two from getting need-based aid. I do not make enough to cover payments on student loans (the only debt my wife and I have is the mortgage, but the cheapest condo we could find in a safe neighborhood still costs us more than half my salary in mortgage payments. There is one slightly cheaper condo complex in my city, but it is known for its high violent crime rate so I refuse to live there). The biological father of the elder two has bought in to the notion that today's kids are too soft and won't help at all. I am listing all of these details because they all illustrate that life here on the West Coast has gotten a lot more difficult. While middle class income has come up a bit, and clothing and electronic trinkets (the ownership of which appears to be what economists use to measure prosperity) have gotten immeasurably cheaper since I was in college, tuition and living expenses have skyrocketed. This being the case, I am not at all surprised if more young people are staying home longer. This is becoming an economic neccessity.