Party On

email this story
read comments (99)
post a comment

Party On

There's a trend in movies about GenX guys in their early to mid 30s who're having trouble growing up. Guys who can't seem to get rolling with a career or commit to a serious relationship or even think about becoming productive, semi-responsible adults, and instead are working dead-end jobs, hanging with the guys all the time, watching ESPN 24/7, eating fritos, getting wasted and popping Vicodins.

I'm thinking of four soon-to-open films that deal with this subject front-and-center: Kevin Smith's Clerks 2 (Weinstein Co., 7.21), Tony Goldwyn's The Last Kiss (the remake of Gabrielle Muccino's Italian-made hit, adapted by Paul Haggis and due for release by Paramount on 9.15), You, Me and Dupree (Universal, 7.14) and The Groomsmen (Bauer Martinez, 7.14).

(l. to r.) Owen Wilson, Kate Hudson, Matt Dillon in You, Me and Dupree (Universal, 7.14)

There have probably been fifteen or twenty other films that have come out over the last four or five years about 30ish guys finding it hard to get real.

The 40 Year-Old Virgin was basically about a bunch of aging testosterone mon- keys doing this same old dance (with Steve Carell's character being a slightly more mature and/or sensitive variation). Virgin director-writer Judd Apatow has made a career out of mining this psychology.

Simon Pegg's obese layabout friend in Shaun of the Dead was another manifes- tation -- a 245-pound Dupree.

Prolonged adolescence is an old pattern, of course. The difference these days is that practitioner-victims are getting older and older.

Martin Davidson and Stephen Verona's The Lords of Flatbush (1974) dealt with this pattern to some extent, but the characters (played by Sylvester Stallone, Henry Winkler, Perry King) were in their mid to late 20s, as I recall.

Barry Levinson's Diner was also about guys who want to keep being kids, but his Baltimore homies were all under 30. (Was Mickey Rourke's character older?)

Putting off life's responsibilities is a deeply ingrained pattern among European males, or certainly Italian ones. Federico Fellini's I Vitteloni (1953) was about a group of guys pushing 30 who do little more but hang out and get into dumb situations in their home town on the Adriatic.

Why are immature attitudes among 30-something guys so persistent these days? Is this a breakthrough or a virus? Is it a reaction to overpopulation? Is it because the culture is telling them, "It's okay, bro...we're with you no matter how immature you are as long as you keep spending money on goods and services"?

Men who came of age in the 1920s and '30s knew they had to start acting like adults and getting jobs and taking care of their families when they were just out of college.

With World War II and Korean War service eating up their early 20s, young men of the 1940s and early '50s had to get down by their mid 20s, although many got going earlier.

When I was a pup in the 1970s the deal among pothead libertines, free-thinkers and alternative-lifestyle types was that you could mess around and duck the hard stuff in your 20s, but you absolutely had to grim up and get it together before you hit 30 or face eternal shame.

Now the GenXers have lifted that barrier and taken the I-still-want-to-fuck-around- with-my-friends-and-get-loaded-and-play-video-games aesthetic into their early to mid 30s.

What's going to happen with GenYers? Or with my kids' generation? Are they going to delay getting down to it while still grappling with adolescent behavior issues when they're 40 and over?

(l. to r.) Kevin Bacon, Mickery Rourke, Daniel Stern, Timothy Daly in Barry Levinson's Diner

Obviously we're looking at some kind of fraying of the social fabric, a rise of a culture founded upon impulsive kick-backing and avoiding the heavy lifting and preferring to channel-surf through life rather than actually live it.

Maybe we're headed toward a culture in which guys will never grow up, ever, and women will start running things more and more. Ladies, it's okay with me.

Euro Snakes<< previous | next >>Weiner's Con Foiled

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 6, 2006 at 1:13 PM

comment #1

chris says ...

nice article, Jeffrey. Fascinating stuff.

Posted by chris at July 6, 2006 1:25 PM

comment #2

Daniel Zelter says ...

I think it has to do with the lack of advancement in today's career world. People aren't getting ahead, so they're trying to find fulfillment in simpler ways.

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 6, 2006 1:30 PM

comment #3

Adam says ...

I don't know how much this is impacting it yet, but as retirement age continues to creep up, you're seeing more and more stagnancy at the upper levels, which can be a bit of a demotivator.

Posted by Adam at July 6, 2006 1:35 PM

comment #4

John says ...

We live in a country where guys can afford to be slackers into their 30's. They look at marriage as less and less appealing, and most jobs are dead-end, so why not goof around and have fun longer? Me, I'm 33 and have 4 kids, so those times are past but I have friends my age and older who just play video games and hang out and don't really seem to have any ambition while working dead-end jobs. Even the married ones take their turns playing EverQuest and never really have a life in the here and now.

Posted by John at July 6, 2006 1:38 PM

comment #5

Mike Russell says ...

Yeah, there's definitely something seismic going on. I've been calling it "30-Year-Old Boy Cinema" in my reviews for a little while now.

I interviewed Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright a while back, and here's what Pegg had to say about it: "I think ... this generation has literally been given a 10-year extension to their youth. The generation before us, turning 20, you had to start getting on with real life. Now, they say 40 is the new 30 and whatnot. We're living with the advent of communications technology, video games -- almost the infantilization, if that's the word, of adulthood. People who'd be getting married in their 20s and having kids are putting it off until they're much, much older." Eerily echoes what you just wrote, actually.

But as I'm fond of joking: if 40 is the new 30 and 30 is the new 20, does that make 20 the new 10?

Posted by Mike Russell at July 6, 2006 1:39 PM

comment #6

Dixon Steele says ...

Interesting post, Jeff.

Is there a female equivilent to these movies?

Posted by Dixon Steele at July 6, 2006 1:47 PM

comment #7

Colin says ...

It seems like 2 of these films could be seen as microcosms of this shift. Aren't both Ed Burns and Kevin Smith essentially saying, "Hey, remember those guys from Clerks [1994] and The Brothers McMullen [1995]? Yeah, well, they're pretty much doing the same thing now."

Posted by Colin at July 6, 2006 1:47 PM

comment #8

dontknownothing says ...

it's the ME generation. do whatever makes ME happy. do whatever is fun for ME. there aren't very many hard issues guys need to personally face at this time (going w/ kip to the bar or playing ps2 with tom doesn't count). sure, there's a war going on but we're so far removed...it's not like guys are worried about being drafted. plus, mom and dad are living longer that they can support this behavior from their grown-up kids who are still living at home with them.

Posted by dontknownothing at July 6, 2006 1:47 PM

comment #9

Mike Russell says ...

Dixon, I'm wondering if these movies aren't their OWN "female equivalent" -- because one staple plot point of nearly all 30-Year-Old Boy movies is that the lead character is punted into confronting adulthood by a sensible woman.

Posted by Mike Russell at July 6, 2006 1:49 PM

comment #10

addison says ...

I think in some ways that fight club, though not a comedy, embodied this mentality and was why it struck a chord with a lot of young men. Perhaps an attempt to take back some sort of control in a modern world that in many ways seems to try to immasculate men? Just a thought.

Posted by addison at July 6, 2006 1:52 PM

comment #11

Anonymous says ...

I think this new trend is a perfectly viable response to all the guys who used to get married and have kids in their 20s, get divorced in their 30s, and descend into depression/motorcycle riding in their 40s. I actually think it's a sign of maturity when men postpone marriage and having kids until they're mentally ready, rather than rush into it and either a) cause their kids to be raised in a hostile, divorce environment or b) become immature, selfish fathers. Remember, there are plenty of young married men who play video games and watch sports all day. Those guys are bad parents, just like the Duprees of the world would be if they got married and had kids.

Posted by Anonymous at July 6, 2006 1:53 PM

comment #12

NYCBusybody says ...

I think it's quite obvious that a huge part of this generational gap has to do with the onset of feminism in the late 60's/early 70's (this is no critique of feminism at all, just a cultural observation). I think the generations of boys that have grown up with images, ideas, and cultural norms of stronger, more independent, sexually liberated women have adjusted, shall we say, their own expectations and ideals. Why get married when you can have casual sex and multiple partners until you're in your 40's, maybe beyond? Many women now value careers over having children, so it's to be expected that young men have also been raised in a culture where children are normally to be delayed, put-off, maybe altogether.

No wonder many young men choose to say "fuck it, I'll just have fun, who takes concepts like family and hard work seriously any more anyway"?

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 1:54 PM

comment #13

Duck of Death says ...

I think the advent of technology certainly has something to do with it...there are a lot of cool toys out there now. Ultimately though I just think we live in an age of lowered expectations. Americans just don't believe that their kids will do better than them anymore. The only jobs this economy creates anymore are service jobs(waiter, busboy, cashier) and since the future looks no brighter than it does today, might as well enjoy the moment.

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 1:55 PM

comment #14

Tom Brazelton says ...

I won't deny that you're on to something by identifying this trend in movies, Jeff. But to say that there's been a cultural shift into prolonged adolescence in the 30's is B.S. All you need to do is find the nearest mid-lifer who went out and bought a Corvette to regain some of that lost youth to know that.

If you ask me, the generation that is in their 30's now is just cutting out the middle man. We're not ducking responsiblity. We're recognizing the futility of a world where more and more decisions like health care, job security and gas prices are being taken out of our hands.

Posted by Tom Brazelton at July 6, 2006 1:55 PM

comment #15

Evan says ...

The mentality is legit. Half of us are out there fighting longer commutes, longer hours, for a smaller piece of the pie, and the sad reality that hard work and talent doesn't guarantee squat. I have a friend who is 32, has been on unemployment more than he has worked since finishing his 7 year undergrad degree, but he has more fun than anyone I know. I have a good job, a wife, and a house, but I am jealous of his life more than I care to admit.

The prevailing factor for people our age is luck. Luck in finding a woman, a job, and enough stuff to keep you interested so you dont want to kill yourself when you get up in the morning.

Posted by Evan at July 6, 2006 2:00 PM

comment #16

Sean says ...

The underread Steve Himes has made a small industry out of pointing this out in mainstream comedies, specifically those featuring Will Ferrell and Vince Vaughn. Here he is on Elf:

http://flakmag.com/film/elf.html

Posted by Sean at July 6, 2006 2:16 PM

comment #17

delbomber says ...

I was born in '79, straddling GenX & Gen Why?. I don't think this attitude is confined to people born during these generations, but people who are generally working today of ANY generation. What with discount travel agents, Moore's Law, credit cards, and the false economy of middle-class real estate (i.e. their net worth due to their homes), almost all of life's once-exclusive or unattainable luxuries can be had by the common man. Electronics, new construction, travel, fast and loaded cars, spas, plush accoutrements, et cetera, et cetera are all within our grasp...with no apparent downside and very little effort.

The internet has bred us to be lazy. Information is available in just a few clicks. Our welfare state demoralizes us. You've heard it all, and it's true. Combining this false sense of entitlement, cultivated laziness, effortless accessibility, with our unimaginable BORROWING power, there is no incentive to work hard. Why work for tomorrow when one can have everything today?? Why work hard when you can win 'American Idol' next year?

Of course this get-rich-quick/consequences-later view is extremely myopic and could, according to some, lead to both individual and collective economic catasrophes in the near future--a different discussion altogether--but I think it helps explain the general mindset of this working generation.

Blah, enough ranting...I'm not being graded on this...

Posted by delbomber at July 6, 2006 2:17 PM

comment #18

sutter kane says ...

I think the cultural shift that's happening has less to do with when you have to 'grow up' than it does with a general movement away from the idea of 'kids/marriage/career by 30'. I almost wound up one of those guys, and have seen it happen to a lot of my friends. But I know a lot of other guys who aren't sure they want to get married, and are pretty sure they don't want kids. These have been the central tenants of the american dream for so long, I have to say that, at 26, it's been pretty liberating to realize I don't HAVE to do those things.

It's not even that I don't want to, but for a lot of this country, especially among men, I don't think it occurs to them that they even have a choice. Jeff, I might say this is a big contributing factor to what you called 'Del Mar nation'. Ennis and Jack didn't just deny their feelings for fear of retribution; they did it because they had a very strong sense of the life they were supposed to lead, and their relationship wasn't part of that.

I say, live free, gents. Play video games until you're sixty, if that's what makes you happy.

Posted by sutter kane at July 6, 2006 2:18 PM

comment #19

delbomber says ...

And why does Mr. Movie Poopshoot get a pass but Apatow gets bashed again? Smith has been dipping his one-hitter into the same stash for, umm, forever.

Posted by delbomber at July 6, 2006 2:21 PM

comment #20

mizerock says ...

The reward for hard work has been diminished greatly. Yeah, maybe you'll make $30k more if you bust your ass for a decade, but you'll never be RICH that way. And what would the extra money get you, anyway? More hassles, more worries, less time to enjoy life.

So if you're not born to the elite class, I think it's a completely rational response to quit chasing after the golden ring. But to be a total slacker? That's just pathetic. I imagine a higher proportion of the "elite" actually wind up like those clowns (drugs, late nights, video games), because their family can carry that load.

Posted by mizerock at July 6, 2006 2:25 PM

comment #21

NYCBusybody says ...

I don't think economics or job security have much to do with this. The economy has been in relatively good shape since the early 90's, particularly during Clinton's era, and this same mentality was not only growing, but prospering. Even poor, poor men in generations past with NO job skills or hopes (including..ESPECIALLY...immigrants) have always valued family, children, etc. I think it's much more of a cultural/gender related issue.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 2:29 PM

comment #22

Daniel Zelter says ...

NYC: "Why get married when you can have casual sex and multiple partners until you're in your 40's, maybe beyond?"

The problem is most of the people in that demo aren't having multiple partners. They're not having any relationship.

Tom: "If you ask me, the generation that is in their 30's now is just cutting out the middle man. We're not ducking responsiblity."

Allowing our kids to become fatter and stupider and allowing jobs to be outsourced isn't what I'd consider taking responsibility.

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 6, 2006 2:31 PM

comment #23

mizerock says ...

True enough, delbomber - people are in MASSIVE amounts of debt these days. Everyone else is doing it (even our Government), so it must be OK, right? Take out an "interest-only" loan, max out the cards, pay them off in a few years when you cash in on the appreciation of your house. Free money!

What are the banks going to do, anyway? Make everyone pay back their loans, all at once? Right.

Posted by mizerock at July 6, 2006 2:32 PM

comment #24

Mathew says ...

I hate to sound like my parents but here it is: We're spoiled. I'm sure the majority of us posting here have parents who did better than their parents financially. I know my parents had a real motivation to go to college, graduate and get a good paying job. My dad hated that his parents had no money when he was growing up. He had to sleep in the same bed with his younger brother into high school. Yikes! So as growing up, our generation had it much better. We had our own bedrooms, plenty of toys, a car and college paid for. So what's our motivation? I suppose we can still strive to do better than our parents but many of us look at them and wonder if it was worth it. Actually that's bullshit. Since we had it so good for so long we're really incapable of the maturity to be motivated. So really the best thing that could happen to any of us is to be kicked on our ass and have everything we expect to be taken away. Forced into survival mode then maybe we'll be motivated to grow up.
Sorry now I'm sounding like grandpa...

Posted by Mathew at July 6, 2006 2:38 PM

comment #25

mizerock says ...

Didn't our parents work as hard as they did just so we wouldn't suffer the way they did? OK, mission complete. It was a nice idea, but now we, as a nation, are soft, spoiled, obese, lazy, whiny, and unmotivated.

Posted by mizerock at July 6, 2006 2:42 PM

comment #26

Duck of Death says ...

So, ok...you're a slacker and you decide to 'grow up' what does that mean exactly. Go out and get a job as a busboy, hope to work your way to waiter, then get married and have kids and start applying to every credit card company so you can make ends meet at the end of the month? 'Growing up' was defined in an era which no longer exists, getting married and having kids. Those days are long gone...w/ all the manufacturing jobs as well.

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 2:53 PM

comment #27

Duck of Death says ...

' I know my parents had a real motivation to go to college, graduate and get a good paying job...Since we had it so good for so long we're really incapable of the maturity to be motivated'

Ok, Matthew....list the 'good jobs' that you suggest are so readily available if only slackers got motivated.

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 2:57 PM

comment #28

Mathew says ...

"Maybe we're headed toward a culture in which guys will never grow up, ever, and women will start running things more and more. Ladies, it's okay with me."

This needs to be addressed. Women no matter how independent they become will still desire a man who is confident and knows what he wants. That's part of the problem with today's gen-x male; most of them are feminized and basically are clueless as to what their lot in life is. Men have their place and women have their place. In the end male/female relationships are healthier and happier when we stick with our original blueprints and not let society dictate how we're supposed to behave.

Posted by Mathew at July 6, 2006 3:00 PM

comment #29

delbomber says ...

Most people are making good points...we just experienced the greatest era of economic expansion in the history of mankind, with one of the loosest Fed money policies in precedent...there was so much money begging to be borrowed and spent that we went just took it and ran. I'm not against debt, necessarily, so long as it's used properly by those who have the means and vision to do so. The problem arose from those not understanding how to wield debt as a financial instrument getting in on the game, instead focusing on the value proposition: little work and leveraged play makes Jack a happy [drowning] boy...

Posted by delbomber at July 6, 2006 3:03 PM

comment #30

Mathew says ...

"Ok, Matthew....list the 'good jobs' that you suggest are so readily available if only slackers got motivated."

Actually my dad worked as a salesman for 15 years at a job he didn't enjoy. Then he took it upon himself to be self-employed. My dad achieved success because he desired a lifestyle that could afford him to have children, a nice house and to be able to travel.

Our generation is the opposite: We expect to be paid well by doing what we enjoy which is basically nothing. There are good paying jobs out there but they usually don't involve playing video games, watching movies or jerking off.

Posted by Mathew at July 6, 2006 3:08 PM

comment #31

Duck of Death says ...

When the programming jobs all went to India, I also became self-employed so I know where you're coming from but you still didn't answer my question Matthew. We get it...lazy, unmotivated, video games, blah, blah. Now, list the 'good jobs' that you suggest are so readily available if only slackers got motivated.

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 3:18 PM

comment #32

Mathew says ...

I'm not here to help you find a job. There are no guarantees, no free lunches and if you think so then I have nothing else to say to you.

Posted by Mathew at July 6, 2006 3:51 PM

comment #33

nobdy says ...

I myself am part of the 'y generation' and don't have any intention of being nowhere at 30.
I fell into a hole about 6 years ago and I been trying to get out of it ever since, and if I had not, I would have probably conquered Hollywood by now and revolutionized television. (It's good to have goals,right?)
I hate being lazy and the only reason I would is after a hard days' work or alot of studying.
I hate this consensus among the baby boomer generation that anyone under 30 is not to be trusted when they themselved believed the complete opposite when they were in the 20s.

Posted by nobdy at July 6, 2006 3:53 PM

comment #34

Anonymous says ...

totally unrelated..
but the superman haters will enjoy it.

http://flagpole.com/comics/index.php?COMIC=flickskinny_b&ISSUE=2006-07-05

Posted by Anonymous at July 6, 2006 3:57 PM

comment #35

Duck of Death says ...

Matthew,

Your inability to list 'good jobs' readily available is only surpassed by your inability to read. I wrote: " I also became self-employed so I know where you're coming from..." which I'm pretty sure implies that I am not seeking employment. My guess is you don't know really what jobs are out there and you probably spoke without really thinking and now, unable to back it up, you lash out. Typical wingnut. If you like, I'll post the results of tomorrow's Non-farm Payroll numbers after their release...but I'll make a prediction: The numbers will be dissapointing and the only sectors seeing any growth will be in the service, health care and financial services sectors. Wanna try again? Make my day.

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 4:03 PM

comment #36

Anonymous says ...

Some possible factors:

-Porn as a replacement for real sex - maybe
-Women having enough financial ability to take care of themselves and therefore not HAVING to settle for the kinds of guys they would have gotten stuck with in the past.
-Being a single woman not as much as a social stigma as in the past
-Guys figuring that if women will have sex with them without marriage - why bothern with the marriage?
-Men raised by single moms without a good father image to model themselves after.
-kids looking within their peer group for role models and not adults (including their parenets) - therefore not seeing anything positive about being an adult.
-Economy is such that middle-class people who invested in real estate (like their own homes) and stock market in the 50's-70's made big gains and have a lot of disposable income with which to pamper their adult children (who face a much bleaker financial world).

Posted by Anonymous at July 6, 2006 4:34 PM

comment #37

Richard says ...

I'm 55 and am currently not working. The great thing about being my age and being a slacker is that when people ask me what I "do," I just say, "I'm retired," and instead of being disgusted, people are either impressed or don't bat an eye. I spent the winter in Phoenix and am now in NYC, having come here in May.

I'm gay and don't have kids or a significant other, so it's easy for someone like me. Yet I find that a number of my friends who took the more established route of working long hours and raising a family are now living lives exactly like mine now that their kids are grown up (though some are still living at home) or their spouses have died or they are being pushed out at their jobs by early-retirement packages that are too good to be true.

But today I passed the local nursing home, and outside was a sign that said, "Celebrating Fanny's 111th Birthday!" I thought, I'm 55 and I'm not even half Fanny's age. God help me if I live that long.

I apply for demanding jobs every day, but I don't get many interviews. Whether it's my age or not -- yeah, I did work in really responsible and high-powered jobs for years and years, starting as a college teacher at 23 -- it sometimes seems that society wants someone my age to be a slacker. And so my friends in their late 50s and I are taking advantage of that.

Posted by Richard at July 6, 2006 4:40 PM

comment #38

Mathew says ...

"Your inability to list 'good jobs' readily available is only surpassed by your inability to read."

You can't read. When I was talking about finding a job I was talking about my parents generation. I then used an example of my father working as a salesman for 15 years and never enjoying it.

Today's world is different. No shit. However going out and interviewing for a job is no different.

So what what kind of business do you run Duck of Death?

Posted by Mathew at July 6, 2006 4:44 PM

comment #39

Duck of Death says ...

Well, conservatives want to pin all this on 'values' or lack thereof. I have yet to see any proof that having 'values' or not having 'values' makes anyone more pre-disposed to successful employment. Having worked in a corporate environment I can assure you that some of the most successful people I encountered were almost completely devoid of any 'values' and were also immature idiots to boot. MATTHEW WHERE DID YOU GO! COME BACK LITTLE WINGNUT...COME BACK!

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 4:46 PM

comment #40

Anonymous says ...

Matthew,
I wrote: 'I also became self-employed'
to which you retorted: 'I'm not here to help you find a job.' I remarked, that based on what I had previously written, I was clearly not looking for employment, but your reading comprehension level doesn't seem adequate enough to understand. Then you blathered on about something unrelated to what I wrote...no surprise there! I don't run a business, I day-trade the foreign exchange market. I will ask the question for the 3rd time: list the 'good jobs' that you suggest are so readily available if only slackers got motivated. Try again.

Posted by Anonymous at July 6, 2006 5:08 PM

comment #41

Duck of Death says ...

I am responsible for the above post...forgot the name field.

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 5:09 PM

comment #42

Chris says ...

It's amazing none of you have set on the physiological/psychological demographic FACT that explains the extension of adolescence into one's late 20s and early 30s - - the simple fact is, someone who was born in 1970 is probably going to live into their late 80s. Someone born in 1980 is probably going to live into their late 90s. As technology has extended the human life span, it's expanded individuals' ability to slack off longer and put off the common accoutrements of "adulthood."

You see this phenomenon is areas far beyong a couple of lousy movies - men in their early 40s marrying for the first time; women in their late 30s having kids for the first time; 50-year-old buying their first home and 40 year olds finally opening up an IRA.

Sorry guys - there's no fancy social/political explanation for it. Some of the economic factors discussed above reflect the new demographics of people who basically live twice as long as many did 100 years ago, but the root cause is extended lifespan.

The onset of old age and imminence of death is a fantastic economic/cultural motivator. That moment of realization occurred much earlier in people's lives in the past than it does now.

Posted by Chris at July 6, 2006 5:21 PM

comment #43

Troy S. Williams says ...

Well, I just turned 30 last month and I have worked at a dead-end job for 10 years now. I decided that it was time to change things. And really...it's only because other people in my age group are.
I don't drink/smoke/do drugs. I love DVDs. It's what I spend all my money on (after rent/car insurance/food...) I'm married, but NOT with children.
I figured why "grow up"? If you choose to grow up that means you are choosing to grow old. Right? It's true.
It's almost like Tyler Durden says in Fight Club:
"We were all raised to believe we would be anything we want when we grow up..."
I don't want to be that guy at the mall that doesn't know what videogame character his kid is talking about.
Do I need to be intouch with every generation? No. But if I'm not how will I get the Family Guy references 10 years from now?

Posted by Troy S. Williams at July 6, 2006 5:27 PM

comment #44

Duck of Death says ...

Chris,

Good point, certainly extended life span is a factor, but the pickings are still getting slimmer all the time for those who decide to 'grow up'. Interestingly enough, I just read that we have peaked as far as life expectancy in the US and that LE will now start to decline.

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 5:38 PM

comment #45

NYCBusybody says ...

It's a much less constricted society, for both men and women. I think youmg men have followed the lead of women in the last 30 years or so, and it has led to a much more liberated, responsibility-free, casual style of life, and I for one have abso-fuckin-lutely no problem with it.

Thank god for feminism, 'cause I love easy bitches.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 5:38 PM

comment #46

Daniel Zelter says ...

Mathew: "I hate to sound like my parents but here it is: We're spoiled. I'm sure the majority of us posting here have parents who did better than their parents financially. I know my parents had a real motivation to go to college, graduate and get a good paying job."

It's not that they're more spoiled than their parents. It's that they have less opportunities than their parents.

"That's part of the problem with today's gen-x male; most of them are feminized and basically are clueless as to what their lot in life is."

Their being clueless has nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with the increasing diminishing returns(lower wages, less security, etc.) for the effort put into surviving.

"My dad achieved success because he desired a lifestyle that could afford him to have children, a nice house and to be able to travel."

Nowadays, few people can afford that lifestyle, even though many desire it.

"There are no guarantees, no free lunches"

Unless you're well-connected like Bush or Paris Hilton.

"However going out and interviewing for a job is no different."

Actually it is different, since it's no longer about whether you're qualified, but whether they like you. It's all about how you add to the company's image, not about how well you can do the job. It's essentially the corporate PR equivalent to affirmative action.

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 6, 2006 5:39 PM

comment #47

NYCBusybody says ...

Nobody listen to Zelter. It's not that he's not smart, but he's a socialist. Socialism by its very definition is an extremely rigid belief that EVERY single problem in society is inherently caused by an unfair oppression of working masses by an evil elite, and that the only way to correct ANY social problem is to re-distribute resources. Right or wrong, it leaves no nuance for argument or ability to see anything outside of its narrow scope.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 5:41 PM

comment #48

BL says ...

NYCBusybody:

Many (or all?) Scandenavian countires are socialist and they seem to be doing pretty well if not much better than the USA.

Your rehtorical phasings indicate you are confusing Socialism with 'Marxism/Leninism", which one could call a SORT of socialism (or Communism, there are a lot of semantical quibbles about this kind of thing) - but is not socialism per se.

The Shakers and Quakers could be called 'socialist' - yet I never heard of them referring to the 'working masses', etc.

Posted by BL at July 6, 2006 5:51 PM

comment #49

NYCBusybody says ...

Yes, Marxism/Leninism, you're correct.

I just didn't want to confused the uneducated masses.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 5:54 PM

comment #50

Duck of Death says ...

Ohhh....socialism. Now it gets interesting. While I wait for Mathew to answer a question I have now asked 3 times....let me ask NYCBusybody something. While I certainly have my probs w/ socialism...don't you think that in a capatalist system it is necessary to have some level of social safety net as a way to prevent revolution as has been historically the case.

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 5:55 PM

comment #51

Daniel Zelter says ...

NYC: "Socialism by its very definition is an extremely rigid belief"

Not any more rigid than intelligent design.

"that EVERY single problem in society is inherently caused by an unfair oppression of working masses by an evil elite,"

So you're saying the working class can be blamed for the war and the lack of health care?

"and that the only way to correct ANY social problem is to re-distribute resources."

As opposed to re-distributing resources to nuclear weapons?

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 6, 2006 5:56 PM

comment #52

NYCBusybody says ...

No, none of what you just said. You create straw-man arguments, which is putting words in another's mouth, then defeating that argument instead of the one before you.

It's what Karl Rove does. Obviously you admire him.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 5:57 PM

comment #53

NYCBusybody says ...

"don't you think that in a capatalist system it is necessary to have some level of social safety net as a way to prevent revolution as has been historically the case."

Of course. Without question. Unchecked, unbridled capitalism leads to Halliburton, Enron, Ken Lay, and criminal inequality. I despise unchecked capitalism as much as socialism.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 5:59 PM

comment #54

Duck of Death says ...

Cool, I'm not a fan of the social safety net we currently have in the US. Have you read the book by Charles Murray? He suggests eliminating the bureacracy and simply cutting a $10,000 check to every citizen of age(regardless of income)for health care, tuition or whatever. I like it.

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 6:05 PM

comment #55

NYCBusybody says ...

I personally think Clinton and the DLC Democrats (moderate, sensible left-wing) are the model to follow. Pro-business, anti-welfare, but concerned about the inequalities that spring up under capitalism, rather than shooing them under the rug.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 6:10 PM

comment #56

Mathew says ...

"Pro-business, anti-welfare, but concerned about the inequalities that spring up under capitalism, rather than shooing them under the rug."

I agree. However like all politics it's not that cut and dry. There are just too many fingers in the pie.

Posted by Mathew at July 6, 2006 6:13 PM

comment #57

Duck of Death says ...

'I personally think Clinton and the DLC Democrats (moderate, sensible left-wing) are the model to follow.'
I might agree if they hadn't voted for and supported the worst military mistake in US history.

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 6:14 PM

comment #58

NYCBusybody says ...

"I agree. However like all politics it's not that cut and dry. There are just too many fingers in the pie."

I agree. Nothing is cut and dry, and that's why the extreme, angry rhetoric on both sides clouds the issues so that sensible people can't work on problems that have shades of grey.

Don't get me wrong. I know that extreme angry rhetoric is fun. I partake in it myself from time to time.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 6:15 PM

comment #59

Duck says ...

Mathew, let me know when you're gonna answer my question(which I have now asked 4 times)...any year now.

Posted by Duck at July 6, 2006 6:15 PM

comment #60

Mathew says ...

"While I wait for Mathew to answer a question I have now asked 3 times..."

You're asking me what "good" jobs are available and I cannot answer that. For one thing I don't know what part of the country you live in. You're asking a rhetorical question. Answer it yourself by looking up your city on Monster.com and search for a job you want.

Posted by Mathew at July 6, 2006 6:17 PM

comment #61

NYCBusybody says ...

So sometimes you're a Duck, and sometimes a Duck of Death? hehe

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 6:17 PM

comment #62

Daniel Zelter says ...

NYC: "You create straw-man arguments, which is putting words in another's mouth, then defeating that argument instead of the one before you."

I get bored listening to people who can't win trying to undermine my arguments with accusations of fallacies in my approach to discussing certain issues. This is the real world, not a debate class, and if you have nothing to offer, you lose.

"I personally think Clinton and the DLC Democrats (moderate, sensible left-wing) are the model to follow. Pro-business,"

You mean pro-outsourcing.

"anti-welfare,"

They're against social welfare, not corporate welfare.

"but concerned about the inequalities that spring up under capitalism,"

How? By ok'ing mergers and consolidations?

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 6, 2006 6:18 PM

comment #63

NYCBusybody says ...

I came to NYC with a shitty college degree from a shitty college, and found a well-paying job with benefits in a month by hustling, working the pavement, and busting my ass.

Not saying it's that easy for everyone for various reasons, but it's not impossible.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 6:19 PM

comment #64

Duck says ...

Well now that we're old chums, I dropped the formality.

Posted by Duck at July 6, 2006 6:19 PM

comment #65

NYCBusybody says ...

You should be just Duck when making a casual statement, and when you're arguing...Duck of Death.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 6:20 PM

comment #66

Daniel Zelter says ...

NYC: "I came to NYC with a shitty college degree from a shitty college, and found a well-paying job with benefits in a month by hustling, working the pavement, and busting my ass."

And how long ago was that? Most people nowadays can't afford college, let alone moving to and living in NYC.

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 6, 2006 6:23 PM

comment #67

Anonymous says ...

Daniel:

"You mean pro-outsourcing."

Yes, I mean pro-outsourcing.

"They're against social welfare, not corporate welfare."

Good.

"How? By ok'ing mergers and consolidations? "

Yes.

Now go listen to your Rage CD's in your mom's room.

Posted by Anonymous at July 6, 2006 6:24 PM

comment #68

NYCBusybody says ...

I got here in early February of this year. And I'm black. I just don't think of myself as a victim or allow guilty white liberals to do so either.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 6:25 PM

comment #69

Daniel Zelter says ...

"Good."

How is taking away taxpayer money from a starving family and giving it to Kenneth Lay a 'good' thing?

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 6, 2006 6:26 PM

comment #70

Duck of Death says ...

'You're asking me what "good" jobs are available and I cannot answer that. For one thing I don't know what part of the country you live in. You're asking a rhetorical question. Answer it yourself by looking up your city on Monster.com and search for a job you want.'

But, Mathew, you are the one who said 'There are good paying jobs out there'. I merely ask you to back up your statement, which you have been unable to do so far. Its not rhetorical. Tommorrow's Non-farm payroll numbers come out, and as I have already predicted, the biggest chunk of jobs created will be in the service sector(i.e. dead end jobs). The fact is 'good paying' jobs are going the way of the dodo. We've sold off our munufacturing jobs(you know, what people in your father's generation called good jobs) for cheap credit.

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 6:26 PM

comment #71

NYCBusybody says ...

"How is taking away taxpayer money from a starving family and giving it to Kenneth Lay a 'good' thing? "

Because I think starving people are amusing, and I want Ken Lay and his ilk to live a wonderful life at their expense.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 6:29 PM

comment #72

Daniel Zelter says ...

NYC: "I got here in early February of this year. And I'm black. I just don't think of myself as a victim or allow guilty white liberals to do so either."

That's great. But you don't have to be a victim to
be too poor to afford an education or a place to live. Hell, even people above the poverty line are struggling with inflation and overpriced housing.

"Because I think starving people are amusing,and I want Ken Lay and his ilk to live a wonderful life at their expense."

You sure your first name isn't Tom?

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 6, 2006 6:35 PM

comment #73

NYCBusybody says ...

As in Uncle Tom? A racist term? Fancy that, a white person immediately using a racial term to win an argument against me.

But of course, insipid racists always hide and cloak it behind good intentions. Put your sheet back on.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 6:36 PM

comment #74

Daniel Zelter says ...

NYC: "Fancy that, a white person immediately using a racial term to win an argument against me."

Well you're supporting a racist ideology, so it's only fair.

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 6, 2006 6:40 PM

comment #75

Duck of Death says ...

Still waiting Mathew.

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 6:40 PM

comment #76

NYCBusybody says ...

Hey, everyone's a little bit racist, as the song says. Glad you admit yours.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 6:40 PM

comment #77

NYCBusybody says ...

I'm off for the night, gots me a girl waitin' for a drink that ain't gonna buy itself. Peace out, all.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 6, 2006 6:43 PM

comment #78

Duck says ...

Night NYCBusybody. Get a pastrami on rye at Katz's for me...and if you see a guy named Mathew, slap the crack pipe out of his hand.

Posted by Duck at July 6, 2006 6:48 PM

comment #79

phil says ...

I find this thread interesting because I'm 23 years old. I got my college degree a year ago and have yet to find a job. I use to send out dozens of resumes a week, but I can barely do it anymore. I'd get interviews that would go nowhere, for jobs that I had absolutly no interest in doing, all because I had to get a job. In the year since I got my degree I've found two jobs: one as a substitute teacher and another working at Target, not in any supervisory form, but on the salesfloor, starting at under $7 an hour. I have managerial experience and am a good worker, and yet I've found nothing. In fact, I'm currently trying to get a full time position at Target because there's nothing else out there. I live with my parents because I don't have enough money to live on my own, though the absolute minute I do I'm moving out (I'm not one of those guys who wants to live w/ his folks to save money, I'd rather struggle a bit and get out on my own). Now, I'm not telling you all of this for sympathy or anything, but jesus, I'm trying so hard to "grow up" but it's nearly impossible for me right now. Now, I'm not blaming society, or really anyone, but it's just the fact of the matter. And then I have someone like Hilary Clinton telling me that, because i'm 23, I'm lazy (which cost her my vote if she ends up running), while I'm working two jobs trying to get my head above water and all I can think about is why? Why am I killing myself over this? I find articles like the one Wells wrote and I want to scream. But I can always make myself feel better when I realize that this is my own life, and no matter what anyone says or any kind of pressures may be exerted on me, it's my life and I will choose what I do with it. I'm not a videogamer, but if what makes someone happy, what gets them through their day, is to play Everquest, then go for it, who the hell are we to tell them otherwise. Me, well, I'm gonna try to get this full time position at Target, not exactly my dream job, but I'm gonna do it anyway because my job doesn't define who I am, it's what I do outside of it that does. I'm going to hang out with my friends, I'm gonna have fun, and when I'm lying on my deathbed I'm gonna make sure I don't have any regrets because somebody told me what I'm doing isn't the "right" way. And, I'm sorry if this came out as more rambling than having a clear point, but hey, it's what I wanted to say.

Posted by phil at July 6, 2006 7:38 PM

comment #80

Daniel Zelter says ...

phil: What kind of degree do you have?

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 6, 2006 7:45 PM

comment #81

Duck of Death says ...

Phil,

You should talk to Matthew...he knows for a fact there are lots of good jobs out there. Heh, heh. Seriously though, its brutal out there no doubt. Is it too late for you to get into health care? I know its not my bag personally, but if it suits you those jobs are plentiful as the boomers age. Other than that, unless you're an MBA, you're pretty much screwed.

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 7:58 PM

comment #82

Robert Burnett says ...

Heck,

To start my own career...I decided to make a movie about malcontent STAR TREK fans on the event horizon of 30. Rent FREE ENTERPRISE. Worked for me. Simply, it was what I knew...

Posted by Robert Burnett at July 6, 2006 8:07 PM

comment #83

delbomber says ...

Great way to hijack an intelligent discussion.

ZELTER!! Go look up NON SEQUITIR in the dictionary....my god man!!! Answer a question with a relevant fucking response ONCE!!!!!

AAAALLLLLLLL the way back up to Chris' post, I find that viewpoint a bit smug. To say "sorry, there are no economic or social reasons" is narrowminded and argumentative. Given that we were raised by people with only a slightly shorter life expetancy, I find the point possible at best, dubious at worst, especially when considering children are maturing at much earlier ages...this issue Jeff raised is due to a multitude of factors, many of which I believe are mentioned here, if you have the patience to filter through the McCarthy hearings above...

Posted by delbomber at July 6, 2006 8:24 PM

comment #84

Dixon Steele says ...

FREE ENTERPRISE was a funny movie, R. Burnett. Loved William Shatner's rap version of Julius Caeser, right?

Posted by Dixon Steele at July 6, 2006 8:48 PM

comment #85

Mathew says ...

"Still waiting Mathew."

Ha! I was going to keep you waiting too.

I think you're just wanting to argue. Maybe it's because you have daddy issues, who knows.

Anyway, what I recommend for you since it sounds like being a day trader isn't working out for you (or was it stuffing envelopes in your parents basement), is to go to a temp agency. Truth is that employers rarely hire cold callers and that resume you sent to XYZ Corp. was probably tossed in the 'Applicant' Folder where it will be shredded three months later. A temp agency will not get you hired at 20th Century Fox as a Hot Shot Movie Director but if you ace your MS Office tests it will get you in at a company where you can work your way up the ladder. That is unless you're a complete fuck-up. Now that's not to say you're going to get rich like in your favorite Michael J. Fox flick, The Secret of My Succe$$ but it will earn you a living. Granted you'll probably be miserable like the those poor saps in The Office but that's life. Or you could just move to China and work at the iPod Farm for 50 cents a day.

Posted by Mathew at July 6, 2006 8:58 PM

comment #86

Duck of Death says ...

Admit it matthew, you misspell you're own name because you're only 13. That would explain your complete lack of reading comprehension. Actually the day trading is going great...but it does involve a lot of waiting, which gives me a lot of time to argue w/ nitwits like you. Daddy issues...I don't have any issues w/ you father, the last time I saw him I was running out the back door of your house whilst he screamed at me. It was then that I was absolutely convinced that you were not born via caesarean(a complete lack of friction you see). How is you're mom...tell her I'll get that $10 I owe to her somehow. Oh shit...thats why your daddy was so mad...I didn't leave a tip!

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 9:23 PM

comment #87

Duck of Death says ...

Well the asian market closes...time for drinks and womanizing. Until next time Mat(t)hew. Is your mom available tonite?

Posted by Duck of Death at July 6, 2006 9:53 PM

comment #88

Jay Tierney says ...

It's the result of them following in the footsteps of the hypocritical baby-boomer generation, which preached one thing and then sold out. It's only natural for a confused generation to follow. As for Gen Y (which I belong to) it seems there's a lot less of this happening so far because we see what's become of our older siblings.

Posted by Jay Tierney at July 6, 2006 10:31 PM

comment #89

Zelter's Mom says ...

"Nobody listen to Zelter."

Don't worry, most of us don't.

Posted by Zelter's Mom at July 6, 2006 11:23 PM

comment #90

Darkblue says ...

Well gee. I'm Gen-X, moved out of my parents house at 18. financed my own college education (Not one dime from the parents. Still paying it off, but I've got a good chunk of it gone already.) I am gainfully employed, with a career I like, and I have been for quite some time.

I also am single, and have zero interest in marriage or kids. Does that mean I only fit half the trend?

The "no kids" thing absolutely drives my parents nuts. I think they would rather see me unemployed and married (so that there are grandchild prospects) than in my current state.

If you ask me: IF the dead end job/30's slacker thing is an actual bonefide trend, its a reflection of
1. The US economy becoming more service oriented, making it more difficult to achieve a mid range ($40-$60K) salary
2. The fact that Gen-x has always placed higher value on time, and quality of time spent then money.
3. The housing boom making it incredibly difficult to buy a even a small home in any desirable area. (I'm sure I could afford one in, say, Wichita, but I don't particularly want to live in Jesusland, and I doubt i'd find a similar paying job there anyway..)

Posted by Darkblue at July 7, 2006 3:52 AM

comment #91

pauly says ...

I'm 38yrs old and strongly identify as a GenXer. I think part of it is that GenXer's were kids in the 70's, still a time of social causes and feeling like the people could make a difference, and that there were things to believe in. Then the 80 came along, including Ronald Reagon, the 'greed is good' stuff and other disillusioning things like that, and we GenXers started to see the truth. The 90's, and especially the whole grunge music seen was our reply to the world...basically apathy, and not believing that the future would be better than the past. It feels like the world for most is being the guy who lost his life savings so Ken Lay could make 800million a year.

Sorry to ramble on, but in a nutshell, GenXers know that our future will not be as good as our parents, and potentially much worse. It's hard to buy in to a system when the writing appears to be on the wall, so why not fuck around and avoid all the stress and suffering of trying to get ahead in a corrupt and soulless time.

Posted by pauly at July 7, 2006 6:48 AM

comment #92

Laura says ...

Is "Failure to Launch" the only film to address this issue head-on?

Posted by Laura at July 7, 2006 9:20 AM

comment #93

NYCBusybody says ...

Was Ken Lay making $800M a year? The NY Times article here says that at his height, his TOTAL net worth was only $400M.

Not to defend a miserable scumbag, but facts are facts.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 7, 2006 12:05 PM

comment #94

NYCBusybody says ...

Was Ken Lay making $800M a year? The NY Times article here says that at his height, his TOTAL net worth was only $400M.

Not to defend a miserable scumbag, but facts are facts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/business/26lay.html?ex=1298610000&en=64139a7b95da334a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 7, 2006 12:05 PM

comment #95

Paul says ...

Let's see - I'm 34, with an MBA, I own my own successful business and my own home, with no debt (though I admit it was 50% planning, and 50% luck)... BUT, I have little to no desire to marry and start a family - I have it too good. When I get home from a long day I like to unwind, relax and play with my toys - the thought of coming home from a hard day to a harder day with the family scares the sh*t out of me - it's hard enough dealing with my own parents when I go to their home for dinner a couple times a month - I can't imagine having to deal with people when I need to mentally detox.

So even though I'm not "traditionally" lazy, I still shirk responsibilites like marriage and see it as just more work instead of a desired goal.

Posted by Paul at July 7, 2006 12:36 PM

comment #96

Jon Wanker says ...

I`m in my 30s, I have no job, no life, do internet all day. I know it makes me innefective in social circles esp. during the holidays...I feel innadequate.

What`s funny though, is I don`t know why I do it! I don`t think i`ve ever asked myself the question of marriages, kids, being married. Or the futur.

I just do what I do.

Posted by Jon Wanker at July 8, 2006 10:24 PM

comment #97