Time Magazine is here to troll everyone with yet another cover story about Kids These Days and Their Lawns (Getting Off of). We have not read it, because Time Magazine. And yet we have decided to debate this Important Issue anyway. Taking the pro-Millennial position will be Rich Abdill (12). Taking the anti-Millennial position will be Rebecca Schoenkopf (40 And Foxy). The child will begin.
It was a thing, back in the days when the media sought to raise the intellectual level of their readers, and people sought to improve themselves by reading it. It wasn&#039;t exactly <i>The Atlantic</i> or <i>Harper&#039;s</i>, but it was crafted well enough to educate the proletariat.
I&#039;m not sure when, or why, stupid became so much more profitable.
You&#039;re too late ... the boomers were all ahead of you, made good money when labor unions were still a thing, and bought up all the good stuff (like houses) back when it was affordable. Now they&#039;re going to use up all the Social Security and Medicare before you get to it.
Austerity is for the 99%, so you&#039;d better make your millions ASAP.
I&#039;d vote for leaky roofs as the downfall. In a fundamentally urbanized civilization, it&#039;s extremely difficult to find and maintain a sustainable semi-agrarian niche. Eventually, if you want a stable life (like, with kids), you have to participate in the general economy.
Speaking as an elderly Boomer (&#039;47), I&#039;d like to point out that I didn&#039;t enter the formal job market until 1969 (and that was in the Air Force). The &#039;50s were my childhood. My employment history started in the &#039;70s. For younger Boomers, that would be the &#039;80s.
You need to raise your sights. The good stuff is upstairs, behind the eyes.
That&#039;s a whole different class of entertainment, like Lions vs. Christians.
It was a thing, back in the days when the media sought to raise the intellectual level of their readers, and people sought to improve themselves by reading it. It wasn&#039;t exactly <i>The Atlantic</i> or <i>Harper&#039;s</i>, but it was crafted well enough to educate the proletariat.
I&#039;m not sure when, or why, stupid became so much more profitable.
Pics or GT... uh ... on second thought, never mind.
I would, but throwing stones is such hard work.
You&#039;re too late ... the boomers were all ahead of you, made good money when labor unions were still a thing, and bought up all the good stuff (like houses) back when it was affordable. Now they&#039;re going to use up all the Social Security and Medicare before you get to it.
Austerity is for the 99%, so you&#039;d better make your millions ASAP.
&quot;YOUNG AND SEXY&quot; is sort of relative ... it&#039;s a matter of perspective.
From where I stand, well, let&#039;s just say that I buy Trix&#039;s argument.
An unholy alliance of the selfish rich and the ignorant rabble. Who knew Nixon&#039;s &quot;Southern Strategy&quot; would metastasize?
You mean Craigslist is a throwback?
All those white male Harvard Business School grads with dozens of job offers from Wall Street have no idea what you&#039;re all complaining about.
It&#039;s so crazy, it might just work.
I&#039;d vote for leaky roofs as the downfall. In a fundamentally urbanized civilization, it&#039;s extremely difficult to find and maintain a sustainable semi-agrarian niche. Eventually, if you want a stable life (like, with kids), you have to participate in the general economy.
1. In this thread, it seems to me more like Millenials coming down on Baby Boomers.
2.. But, of course I come down on Millenials -- they&#039;re my kids.
I knew there was something I could be proud of.
Don&#039;t generalize. It&#039;s unseemly.
Speaking as an elderly Boomer (&#039;47), I&#039;d like to point out that I didn&#039;t enter the formal job market until 1969 (and that was in the Air Force). The &#039;50s were my childhood. My employment history started in the &#039;70s. For younger Boomers, that would be the &#039;80s.