Why So Many Millennials Are Socialists

[spudea]

I think the past couple decades have proven that most people love statism or accept that its always been this way, and socialism is just a different shade that seems more appealing vs what we've had recently.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This isn't an "old model". It's life. Provide more value and you will be rewarded. It's friggin' easy and you can make a ton of money. If anyone is suspicious of this idea, then it's their own fault where they end up. Period.

In a way it is, though. At this point in history it's much easier to exploit the system to get ahead of honest people (ala teh Trumpster and Bamster) than to become successful with honest work. And of course, the welfare system props up bourgeois lifestyles for people whose only disability is laziness.

You get more of what you subsidize, and dumb, fed, poor, and entertained is what the masses subsidize.

 

[Aratus]

Millennials, as a generation, have no memory of the Cold War, etc..

Gravitas is a Roman word. it is tres Latin. the serious millennials are socialists, the superficial
ones might like the very idea of being socialites, and very few of them would understand why
Senator Barry Goldwater would consider Bernie Sanders to be "truth in labeling" by comparison to
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a guy who served in the Wilson Administration for a time in his youth.

 

[MelissaWV]

Provide more value and you will be rewarded.

You said this in response to...

I think this is mostly based on an old model of rewarding Seniority with promotions and I'm not sure how much this is really done anymore.

I think the entire point is that I'd love to work somewhere that the "seniority" thing was tossed out the window. It doesn't matter if you've been there a day or a decade: if you innovate, work hard, exceed the basic expectations for your job, and improve your department/floor/product on a regular basis, you should make more than someone who's been there longer but spends the time outside on their cellphone. The former scenario is promoting for added value. The latter is the "s/he's been with the company for years!" approach, which is the old model.

 

[osan]

Movement, movement? Where do you see any movement?

Just because so-called "media" do not cover it, it does not follow that it is nonexistent.

That said, it appears to be getting little traction with the uninitiated. But who knows, even that could be the result of media ignorance. We do tend to form much of our perceptions based on what is on the tube... those of us who still watch that crap, that is.

 

[CaptUSA]

In a way it is, though. At this point in history it's much easier to exploit the system to get ahead of honest people than to become successful with honest work.

I don't know. My little brother was one of the "downtrodden" for years. He didn't have a job until he was 30. He spent one year in college until he dropped out with a .2 GPA. My father let him stay at his house rent-free. He had no purpose. When my father died, my brother had to get a job. My wife got him a job as a temp at a plastics factory. Finally, the light went on and he realized what I did. Within a year, he was no longer a temp, but a shift supervisor. Within 5 years, he became a general manager at a different factory that makes bushings. Now, 10 years later, he's the VP and responsible for sites in PA, NY, and MS. He makes 6 figures with no degree, no work history prior to that temp job, and no nepotism or charity. If anything, we learned to "exploit" the fact that so many other people are either too lazy to work or too stupid to understand that that's how you make money.

 

[osan]

You said this in response to...



I think the entire point is that I'd love to work somewhere that the "seniority" thing was tossed out the window. It doesn't matter if you've been there a day or a decade: if you innovate, work hard, exceed the basic expectations for your job, and improve your department/floor/product on a regular basis, you should make more than someone who's been there longer but spends the time outside on their cellphone. The former scenario is promoting for added value. The latter is the "s/he's been with the company for years!" approach, which is the old model.

I can get on with that. The whole seniority thing reeks of entitlement, as if time served were a legitimate basis for promotion. This is the "union" mentality, BTW, and it is pure poison.

It has been the same with "respecting your elders". I got into endless trouble with this as a child because starting around age 12 I decided that if you wanted my respect, you were going to have to earn it. The rare times when that attitude surfaced, I tended to get into it deep, like the time in 11th grade when my English teacher kicked me out of class because someone else boinked her in the forehead with silly putty and I laughed. She said something snide as I was leaving and I looked her right in the eyes and told her "fuck you", which was pretty out there for me at that time. Needless to say...

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't know. My little brother was one of the "downtrodden" for years. He didn't have a job until he was 30. He spent one year in college until he dropped out with a .2 GPA. My father let him stay at his house rent-free. He had no purpose. When my father died, my brother had to get a job. My wife got him a job as a temp at a plastics factory. Finally, the light went on and he realized what I did. Within a year, he was no longer a temp, but a shift supervisor. Within 5 years, he became a general manager at a different factory that makes bushings. Now, 10 years later, he's the VP and responsible for sites in PA, NY, and MS. He makes 6 figures with no degree, no work history prior to that temp job, and no nepotism or charity. If anything, we learned to "exploit" the fact that so many other people are either too lazy to work or too stupid to understand that that's how you make money.

Entirely anecdotal, but cool story, bro.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Sure. I worked. I figured out that by providing more value to someone, I got more compensation. The easiest thing I ever had to do was outwork my coworkers. To the point where the boss needed me most. If I'd ask for more money, they'd give it to me. Because I was worth it to them. I did this in several industries until I found one I wanted to stick around in. I showed up on time and tried to provide value until I left for the day. They kept promoting me into more important roles which meant more money. I made a good living in retail, a cement factory, a railroad, the electric industry. I never had a degree until they paid me to get one (worthless piece of paper, if you ask me - they'll give degrees to any moron who spends enough time.)



This isn't an "old model". It's life. Provide more value and you will be rewarded. It's friggin' easy and you can make a ton of money. If anyone is suspicious of this idea, then it's their own fault where they end up. Period.

It might vary, but I think in many jobs you are like a cog in a machine. Prior to truck driving, I did have a tech job in a TV station before the Recession. Unfortunately, I worked alone in a control on the night shift. It was very hard to stand out doing essentially the same thing everyday pushing buttons and switches and I did this for years.

I didn't feel like I was getting anywhere or had advancement opportunites. I think this job is an example of where you put in time for the experience and then move on to another company in a better market. This is what I mean when I describe how people can be stuck in a rut.

My brother went through something similar when he tried to get an Electrical Engineer job at his company where he was just a quality inspector. He did have a degree, but was biding his time until other jobs like this opened. I think the first time he interviewed and the passed him over. During a second opening, it became clear in the conversation that Quality Control guys there are to hard to replace because nobody likes to do it. So my brother told them if he had no hope of advancement he would quit. After some negotiating and taking the risk of being unemployed, he actually got the job and he's doing very well in it.

My brother provided value and they wanted to return the favor by keeping him in that crappy job. Examples like this are why I don't think the 'old model' always works. Sometimes you have to quit or threaten to quit.

 

[kahless]

Some people do not have the ability when they are just trying to make ends meet and are holding multiple jobs to stay a float. They all to frequently lack the time due to work schedules, family obligations or health reasons (handling full time work/night school) to educate or seek an education to change their situation.

The other half of this is you are judging the poor based upon your intelligence level. For some people all the education in the world is not going to make much of a difference. The fact that you are posting here tells me you have a superior intellectual capacity to improve your situation which many of the average folk lack in the same situation.

For the same reasons above I laugh when I hear Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians alike claim that these people will do just fine regardless of the exodus of manufacturing jobs due to free trade because we are a high tech economy and these people will be trained to be high tech workers.

Sorry, but what a crock. I was poor. The kind of poor people don't like to admit. I never said anything about schooling - I was talking about a proper education. There's a big difference. You can get an education cleaning toilets, mopping floors, unloading trucks, stacking tires, or reading meters. I did.

I posted a fact of life for many poor people, how is that crock? No doubt you were poor in some part of the US that was not in a major US inner city like NYC or SF.

Lets see how far mopping floors and working two shifts provides you the ability to pay for a roof over your head and have time to receive an education that allows you to move beyond that in NYC or Silicon Valley without some help. Then lets be miffed when these people vote for candidates that provide them some government solution because we do not offer or promote free market solutions that will help them but rather just call them lazy and stupid or fail to recognize their plight like you just did.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Well, he mentioned working in Retail which can mean a lot of things. If you somehow climb up to management, maybe that pays enough to keep a roof over your head. Working in stock or as a cashier would be a lot harder.

One of my job efforts was retail working in Walmart in the Deli. After Christmas myself and many others all got laid off from a decision in Bentonville completely out of my control and even local management. Gotta kick up the stock price I guess.

 

[kahless]

Of course it's socialism. Yes, socialism requires that people pay into it. That's the gist of it. It's not really free stuff.

But then, that money's not really there, is it? You're not getting "your" money back, you're getting someone else's.

So really what you are saying is, "The government spent 50 years stealing from me and giving it the generation before me, so now I want to steal it from the next generation."

Now, some people may make that argument as being justified, but it certainly puts a different spin on it.

I am saying it is the least socialist program since it is one of the few programs people expect to get their money back since that is how it was intended. The threat of denying the return on the investment is a losing point for any candidate.

If we were at a point where the entire federal government was gutted then it would be time to discuss social security. Most people are not going to support giving up their money first to favor the government distributing their stolen money to other countries and corporate America for government programs.

The dumbest campaign move this entire cycle that is one of many reasons why Rand and Christie had to leave the race is due to SS. Instead of discussing cutting the trillions of dollars we spend overseas and here on government programs, they ignored everything else and wait straight to social security. In other words instead of going after funding the military industrial complex and the bloated federal government they went after the little guy first. Asinine.

 

[MelissaWV]

I posted a fact of life for many poor people, how is that crock? No doubt you were poor in some part of the US that was not in a major US inner city like NYC or SF.

Lets see how far mopping floors and working two shifts provides you the ability to pay for a roof over your head and have time to receive an education that allows you to move beyond that in NYC or Silicon Valley without some help. Then lets be miffed when these people vote for candidates that provide them some government solution because we do not offer or promote free market solutions that will help them but rather just call them lazy and stupid or that fail to recognize their plight like you just did.

Homeless in DC. I never did finish college, though that was not at all the reason for being too poor to afford a place. Dollar menus and vending machines were the only options for dinner, when change could be had. Getting clean often involved finding a likely bathroom... employee bathrooms being the best sort, because most of them had the really good soap that got out grime quickly. You learned which places had good napkins for toilet paper, or for use as towels, or insulation. You insinuate yourself into situations, and you pray you can keep up your ability to get to some job or another. You ponder shelters and assistance programs, only to find they're not keen on taking someone who doesn't have kids, or who won't fess up to being abused. Walking down streets that go from addicts staring off into the distance to gentrified apartments near Hermes and Morton's (when the realization hits you that you used to work upstairs from those --- and Tiffany's --- just a year or two before).

People do judge, which is why all of us benefit greatly from the ability to act. I donate good clothing to career closets, I proofread resumes, I conduct mock phone interviews. I've often considered setting up classes on basic manners and work etiquette, but the managers aren't any better. The more people judge, the more you need to rise above and figure out your attitude towards things. It's not lost on me that all those dresses and suits and heels I used to wear, and all the makeup I put on, and every poised handshake... they didn't get me any further than that sink in a willing hotel. Now I'm a supervisor and I wear jeans and sneakers and keep the finance department running. Attitude.

Now, is what you talked about reality for many poor people? Sure. But the assumption that if you're poor in a major city area, you're beyond climbing out, is idiotic at best.

 

[erowe1]

I am saying it is the least socialist program since it is one of the few programs people expect to get their money back since that is how it was intended.

That is not how it was intended. It has from its inception been a redistribution of wealth. Money was taken from some taxpayers and given to retirees, and then when those taxpayers retire they expect money to be taken from others and given to them.

 

[kahless]

That is not how it was intended. It has from its inception been a redistribution of wealth. Money was taken from some taxpayers and given to retirees, and then when those taxpayers retire they expect money to be taken from others and given to them.

Regardless either way it is politically foolish to make it a priority. It is "keep the money you took from me for retirement" vs "cutting - all other fed expenditures" first. "keeping what is perceived as my money" vs "cutting trillions in the Middle East". Most people are going to say F the Middle East and every program you can think of before they will agree to a candidate where they will have to give up that money.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

All those polls are really about is how different groups react to the word "socialism." Old people love their entitlements. They just don't want to be called socialists.

Exactly, and as I said earlier, I think a lot of it has to do with the end of the Cold War.

"Socialist" no longer implies loyalty to a foreign power, so it's more acceptable.

 

[RJ Liberty]

The dumbest campaign move this entire cycle that is one of many reasons why Rand and Christie had to leave the race is due to SS. Instead of discussing cutting the trillions of dollars we spend overseas and here on government programs, they ignored everything else and wait straight to social security. In other words instead of going after funding the military industrial complex and the bloated federal government they went after the little guy first. Asinine.

Great points, Kahless. The above is getting skipped over, but it deserves discussion.

People want to know that the politicians they support will support them. If they feel a politician won't support them, there's absolutely no way the public will support that candidate. When Rand Paul talked about raising the minimum age of social security benefits instead of focusing on the wasteful spending of this country's massive Military Industrial Complex, it absolutely sent a message to the voters: another politician going after the little guy instead of cutting back on wasteful spending.

 

[djinwa]

I can get on with that. The whole seniority thing reeks of entitlement, as if time served were a legitimate basis for promotion. This is the "union" mentality, BTW, and it is pure poison.

It has been the same with "respecting your elders". I got into endless trouble with this as a child because starting around age 12 I decided that if you wanted my respect, you were going to have to earn it. The rare times when that attitude surfaced, I tended to get into it deep, like the time in 11th grade when my English teacher kicked me out of class because someone else boinked her in the forehead with silly putty and I laughed. She said something snide as I was leaving and I looked her right in the eyes and told her "fuck you", which was pretty out there for me at that time. Needless to say...

You sound like some of the guys I supervise at work who are offended that I should give them direction.

I was training a guy on his first day when he informed me he did not want to be micromanaged. That did not end well.

Since many youngsters are taught that having a job is a right, they don't feel the need to conform to the needs of the place they are working. I have to remind them they are free to go start their own business and hire people who don't care to work or follow instruction.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

In my experience I have seen socialist/ism also operate(s) under the "moral fallacy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy where the ends justify the means because it supposedly serves the greater good. The problem of course is, who/what gets to decide what that is? Let alone who/what decides what my needs and wishes are to fulfill my life. This is where socialism cuts into the individuals freewill and choice to live as one wishes by having their "means/earnings" taken to be distributed as the government sees fit. Therefore, over time we will lose incentive to produce and simply do what the minimum requires us to do. It's a race to the bottom.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

It's really pathetic. I bet the majority of them use Apple products and wear designer labels sipping their lattes at starbucks writing on their facebook walls how awesome Socialism is. The hypocrisy is barf inducing.