Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
konerko14

The Cause For Laziness In Younger People Today

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Is the cause for laziness in younger people today because everything is practically given to them already? Their parents provide them with a house,money,and most other material possessions. They see no need to work for themselves. Its a very selfless act, but do they know better and if they learned a rational morality code(Objectivism) would that change their means of production?

Eventually the money will not be "given" to a generation of young people from their parents(who had that resistance to work), and the work ethic is bound to appear once again. Yes, man does have a volitional mind but environmental factors influence him somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the cause for laziness in younger people today because everything is practically given to them already?
I guess I wasn't aware that modern youth are more lazy that usual. I do think that children are lazier than adults, but it doesn't seem to me that things have changed much over the past 40 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I wasn't aware that modern youth are more lazy that usual. I do think that children are lazier than adults, but it doesn't seem to me that things have changed much over the past 40 years.

What I was referring to is the much older age sons/daughters are living with their parents, and not striving for success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I was referring to is the much older age sons/daughters are living with their parents, and not striving for success.

What does living with your parents have to do with striving for success?

I dont know about America, but the reason more young people are living at home in Britain is due to the overinflated prices in the housing market. $250000 minimum for a cramped one-bedroom flat in a poor area of London? I dont think 'laziness' is the primary factor here.

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does living with your parents have to do with striving for success?

I dont know about America, but the reason more young people are living at home in Britain is due to the overinflated prices in the housing market. $250000 minimum for a cramped one-bedroom flat in a poor area of London? I dont think 'laziness' is the primary factor here.

I meant in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't so much that things are given to them, as that they're not taught the achievement of values is in any way important, significant or even relevant. this means they set no goals for themselves.

Without that, what's there to expend any effort on?

Imagine a youngster who wants to be a scientist. Then he will study, do research, publish papers, attend conferences, etc etc even if he's supported by his parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn't so much that things are given to them, as that they're not taught the achievement of values is in any way important, significant or even relevant. this means they set no goals for themselves.

Without that, what's there to expend any effort on?

Imagine a youngster who wants to be a scientist. Then he will study, do research, publish papers, attend conferences, etc etc even if he's supported by his parents.

Is it the public schools' fault for not teaching these values, or it that something parents should be communicating to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it the public schools' fault for not teaching these values, or it that something parents should be communicating to them?

The schools, the parents, the media, the various religions, the culture in general. It's a philosophical problem. People are taught selflessness and altruism. Are we surprised when the teachings take hold? We should not be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the cause for laziness in younger people today because everything is practically given to them already? Their parents provide them with a house,money,and most other material possessions. They see no need to work for themselves. Its a very selfless act, but do they know better and if they learned a rational morality code(Objectivism) would that change their means of production?

Eventually the money will not be "given" to a generation of young people from their parents(who had that resistance to work), and the work ethic is bound to appear once again. Yes, man does have a volitional mind but environmental factors influence him somewhat.

What makes you think that today's youth is especially lazy? (...compared to the youth of the past or other groups of people) And what do you mean by "lazy"? Maybe you will receive better answers if you provide answers to these questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't the "youth" the most lazy back in the sixties and seventies when they were a bunch of long-haired, kumbaya singing, tree-hugging, pot-smoking hippie commie bastards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also question the basic premise, here. I know people my age with a bachelors degree that still live with their parents because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to go out and get an actual job, but then I know 23-year-olds that own their own house already. It depends on where you go.

The only real generality that I've noticed is that really timid youngsters tend to stay with their parents for a long time; regardless of what qualifications they have, they fear failure so much that they never really go out and try. I was one of those people not too long ago, then my parents kicked me out and reality bit me hard. The result; I have a good job, I've been working for the same company for 4 years, and I have plenty of room for advancement.

I am NOT lazy. I've done the two jobs and college thing. I have no problem with hard work, my real problem is building enough motivation/enthusiasm to actually get started on anything. I suppose that boils down to a lack of willpower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I was referring to is the much older age sons/daughters are living with their parents, and not striving for success.
Well, I don't know about the age thing, but maybe what you see is an abnormal drop in average age of move-out in the 70's where people suddenly felt that they couldn't stand to be around The Establishment, man, which has to do with hippy rebellion and all. Plus, of course, the housing problem as Hal mentioned. I don't see that the slacker-factor has changed, though. It's true that you don't see a lot of 50 year olds wearing baggy slacker skater-pants, so you have to go with personal knowledge of how the person is living their life. I'm not sure there is an explicandum here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Regard to the so called "boomerang generation", I am real hesitant to put much blame on them. Economically we live in a very different world then 20, 50, or 100 years ago. Consider that in 1900 the average person paid less then %6 in taxes every year. Today that number is 32%. People pay more in taxes then on food, clothing and housing combined. Social Security tax alone has gone from 1% in the 1930's to 15.3% currently. So my thought on this boils down to, "of course most 20 somethings can't afford their own houses, they're to busy paying for thier grandparent's homes."

Another factor is that income has not increased in 20 years for 80% of Americans. The top 20% have experienced real income growth that offsets the appearance of the average wage, but the bottom 80% have actually experienced a drop in real wages. Then, of course, in the US, the real estate market has made buying a house almost out of range for most people starting their careers which would also affect costs of renting real estate. At least in most areas. So I don't see younger people as more lazy, just unfortunate inheritors of the last 100 years of quasi-socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(cross-posted from my blog.)

These days, it's become almost cliche for recent graduates to be seen living with their parents, rather than out in the world, busily pursuing fruitful careers.

Part of this is the utter uselessness of most university degrees. The other part, it would seem, is what would appear to be "laziness." But what is this "laziness?"

I was a "young person" not so long ago, so I can remember this fairly well. The main cause of "laziness" was that school was, for the most part, ridiculous and contrived. Upwards of 90% of what took place there consisted of pointless busywork, leftist propaganda, or things which had absolutely nothing to do with what I would be doing in the working world. There was very little which I had any reason to care about and so, naturally, I didn't care.

I never could motivate myself to do anything unless I could see a very clear point to it. I was always amazed at the people who could throw themselves 100% into every one of their classes: I always figured they had to be just smart enough to succeed, and just dumb enough to run on the hamster wheel that is most of academia. Who knows: maybe those people are millionaires now... or maybe the real world hit them like a brick wall and they're still living with their parents. I hope the latter; I'd hate to think that toleration of pointlessness would be rewarded.

The problem of pointlessness didn't end with the advent of college: in fact it got worse. With classes like "Afro-American studies" and requirements like "British literature" for engineers, it's a wonder they're taken seriously by anyone.

I think I would have been better off going to a tech school: at least they focus on job skills there. Of course, when I was younger, whenever I mentioned going to a tech school, peoples' eyes would widen with horror: "Oh, dear! You don't want to go to a tech school. (the horror!) You need a well-rounded education!" Oh if only I had ignored them.

As it is, my "University education" has left me with no certifications to do my job, and I've had to self-teach everything that I do. As I progressed through my education, I kept asking when the job skills would be taught. They kept assuring me it would be next semester, and then the next. When the final semester came, they assured me they would be taught by my employer, on the job.

I found out soon enough the reality of that claim.

When I asked my University why they had left me with no certifications and no job skills, they said "Well, we're a university, not a trade school." (they said those last words with such contempt!) I answered, "Indeed, nobody's going mistake you for a place that teaches useful things! Forbid that you acted as an institution that prepared its students to have jobs," and slammed down the receiver.

I'm sure that anyone who's been to college or high school in the last 15 years can back me up on this one.

Now, does this observation apply to most young people today? Hard to say. They can't all be frustrated achievers who are too reality-focused to bother with pointlessness: at least some of them are simply bums. But the next time you see a "lazy" young person, look twice.

-Inspector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These days, it's become almost cliche for recent graduates to be seen living with their parents, rather than out in the world, busily pursuing fruitful careers.

Why is someone living at home less likely to be pursuing a fruitful career? Cant you do both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inspector: Amen, brother.

Hal: in my experience, living with your parents past the age of 16 or so is a serious pain in the rear even if you get along with them really well. You want to be independant, and they see you as a kid. So, the minute you start earning some decent money in your productive career, you get the heck out of there. This means there's two likely characterizations for an older child living with parents: someone who is doggedly pursuing a career and just not making any money, and someone that hasn't bothered to pursue a career. In either case, some reevaluation is in order.

Sure, there's lots of completely legitimate reasons why you could still be living with your parents past about age 25, but in my experience those situations are the exception, not the norm. I could see some situations where it would be the norm, though; a large family business like a farm, for instance.

I.e. stereotypes can be useful, but they're not comprehensive.

Screw it. I shouldnt have asked it in the first place.

Well, considering the demographics on this board, mostly under thirty from what I've seen, you've essentially accused the membership of being "lazy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I.e. stereotypes can be useful, but they're not comprehensive.

Yes, exactly. In answer to Hal, I'll echo what JMegan said above. (BTW, do you prefer Jennifer, Megan, or JMeganSnow?) It's not that you can't be living at home past 25 and be persuing a fruitful career, it's just that it supposedly used to be that by the time you were 25 you were supposed to be making enough money to move out, and these days that is no longer the case for many. Like I said, this has a lot to do with the uselessness of college these days. (and the "lazyness" is also an effect of the state of academia... at least for some.)

Of course, there's a lot more to it than that. The state of the economy, the willingness of most young people to live at standards below what they have at home, etc. I only meant to address that one aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(BTW, do you prefer Jennifer, Megan, or JMeganSnow?)

Whatever identifies me recognizably and is easiest for you to type. Otherwise, I don't care. If you're meaning to be friendly/informal, Jenni is probably most easily recognized as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I would have been better off going to a tech school: at least they focus on job skills there. Of course, when I was younger, whenever I mentioned going to a tech school, peoples' eyes would widen with horror: "Oh, dear! You don't want to go to a tech school. (the horror!) You need a well-rounded education!" Oh if only I had ignored them.
I've got a similar annoyance at having to teach people who don't want to be in class. It has never made a tap of sense to me to claim that high-school English teacher for some reason needs to know basic physics or that an insurance adjuster needs to know history or Shakespeare. We could all benefit to some extent from knowing as much as possible about the universe, but so what? If a person needs a technical credential for a particular job that they're after, they should go for it in the most efficient way possible. This one size fits all theory of college is counterproductive. Some people just aren't cut out for an education, and what they need is job training. Some people may eventually benefit from an education but aren't ready for it at age 18 or even 25 -- there's nothing wrong with putting it off until you're ready. The only advantage of putting everybody into the same mixing bowl is that cuts costs. Sometimes spending more money is worth it, and it would be quite worth it to me to not have to teach rude children who aren't interested in being there in the first place. I'd prefer to teach people something that interests them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will admit that I have never finished by BS in Physics/Engineering exactly for the reason that having to take all the other classes that I am NOT interested in is boring and expensive and pointless. If I really wanted to get an intruction to pointless subject X I would simply read up on in it a much more efficient self-study basis. I have found a decent online school recently however where i can complete my degree at my own pace at a relatively low fixed cost without having to take other pointless classes and without having to pointlessly sit in a classroom and hear an Instructor pointlessly regurgitate what I can just as easily read (and comprehend much clearer and faster) myself. I just have to come up with the extra money now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inspector: I hear you.

As a junior in college, having switched majors and still not really loving my work, I'm a little scared. I'm sick of the stupid requirements in college, I just want to do what I love. My pleasure reading is the only thing that carries me through school. I feel so late in the game; I know I won't graduate by next spring but I'm ok with it. I want to just get a real job and make money for a while and just LIVE without feeling obligated to get my BS as soon as possible. I'm only 20, and I really don't know what I want to do with my life. I know I want to pursue research in neuroscience, but where could I get a job doing that? I feel as though if I just got a decent job and took classes at my own pace that Grad schools wouldn't glimpse at me. BLAH. Finals tomorrow, I'll pursue this train of thought later.

As far as the laziness claim, I'd say that I have witnessed it, and I think the whole "well-rounded" nonsense of college adds fuel to the fire. For kids who come to school not embedded with the love of a good day's work, this easy-peasy busywork is heaven. They get to do basically nothing for at least 4 years and leave with a piece of paper that claims they know something when they don't. Depending on your major (if it's the humantities, wow you get off scott-free!) you might not be required to actually THINK the entire time you're in college. While you're there you'll meet so many people hating big-business and anything that smacks of success the mentality will rub off (especially to those who don't think for themselves). THAT is the laziness I have seen, and I know that the huge chunk the government takes out of my check pays for THEIR pointless education. If I think about it too much, I get angry.

At least I don't have to report my tips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you guys are right about the college education. I quit school for several years because I couldn't stand the format: forced to pay for classes yourself which you have no desire to take, waiting years to learn the practical parts of your major (and I'm still not sure that time will come), having to sit through long classes "learning" something you could easily learn yourself in a fraction of the time, while listening to other students ask the most ridiculous, mindless questions... yeah, it's horrible. I can easily refer to most of my university education as Google Classes, where I could learn the entire course in two weeks or less with the help of Google, assuming I would want to.

At this point I've basically concluded that school is the fastest way to not have to go to school, meaning the piece of paper still counts. I believe I will benefit very little from a formal education, and I plan on learning everything that is actually important to me by myself, outside of school. I've also spoken to some of my peers who have graduated, and though they have a hard time finding work, at least the work is not $7.50 per hour in food service or retail. I would say the university degree is even still a better way to go than trade work like construction or car repair. I do not understand the students that DavidOdden describes who stay in school when they don't want to be there. Just quit already! Why waste the time and money?

As far as lazy youth goes, my current theory is that if kids were taught a healthy work ethic there would never be any tendency toward laziness. I don't think being born into wealth has anything to do with it, unless the parents do not parent. In fact, wealthy kids have a greater potential to learn the value of a good work ethic, since wealthy parents probably have a better understanding of what it takes to live well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I meant in America.

It still holds true. Between the high costs of college and low paying jobs there's virtually no way to afford a decent home (at the very least, in CT.) Heck my wife and I make decent money, and we can't buy even 3 acres and a small house for under 250,000. (though we did find a nice 60 acre plot with a huge house and indoor arena for 160,000 in South Dakota, but what the heck is in South Dakota?????) Granted, I'm not saying that one shouldn't try (because, obviously, they should), but, in certain areas, the market is somewhat against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never could motivate myself to do anything unless I could see a very clear point to it. I was always amazed at the people who could throw themselves 100% into every one of their classes: I always figured they had to be just smart enough to succeed, and just dumb enough to run on the hamster wheel that is most of academia. Who knows: maybe those people are millionaires now... or maybe the real world hit them like a brick wall and they're still living with their parents. I hope the latter; I'd hate to think that toleration of pointlessness would be rewarded.

The problem of pointlessness didn't end with the advent of college: in fact it got worse. With classes like "Afro-American studies" and requirements like "British literature" for engineers, it's a wonder they're taken seriously by anyone.

I think I would have been better off going to a tech school: at least they focus on job skills there. Of course, when I was younger, whenever I mentioned going to a tech school, peoples' eyes would widen with horror: "Oh, dear! You don't want to go to a tech school. (the horror!) You need a well-rounded education!" Oh if only I had ignored them.

Seriously...good call. I wish I had gone to a pure music school. My *ahem* Mother insisted that I get that same "well rounded education" and it was a pointless/fruitless waste of my time. I went to a small liberal arts school wanting to be a musician. I wholeheartedly wish, now, that I had applied to Berklee or other accredited music schools, but, alas, I did not. The liberal arts (well rounded) education is a joke. And from what I understand, it's true in most schools. I never really understood even the math classes. I took the basic math class (whatever got me through my *required* courses) and it was the biggest waste of my own money ever. I mean, if you want to prepare people for the real world, why do we not have the basic math class teach you how to balance your check book? Get better savings on shopping for food? How interest rates work? I don't know....EVERYDAY math? I mean, I know I'm smart enough to figure most of it out on my own (at least what I didn't learn in middle and high school) but saying that i have to take a class that is CLEARLY a waste of my time...well is a waste of my time. Many of the "art" classes where the same way. So, like Inspector, I put forth JUST the necessary effort to pass in those classes, and put forth most of my energy into my music classes (which I actually ENJOYED). I'm sure I was viewed as lazy by those teachers whose classes I put forth little effort, but there were a select few teachers who knew that they taught pointless classes.

Anyways....sorry for the bit of Rant....Kind of a sore spot for me....well said, though, Inspector!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...