Getting A Life
By Ron Marr (01/16/04)
Society's definition of the "mature" adult has changed much over the years. In the 1950's, perhaps due to the optimism for a bright future following the end of World War II, the benchmarks were a marriage, a steady job at the auto plant, a kid or two and the house with a white picket fence. And, most of these things were expected by age 25.
During that period, and in the decades before, Americans were influenced by the peer pressure of their immediate community. You behaved in a certain way, followed certain rules, lived in such a manner as to fit in with your neighbors. You trusted the powers that be, knowing that, if you found a job, you could likely stay there for life.
Fast forward to 2004. A recent University of Pennsylvania study claims that today's twenty-somethings are hesitant to conform to that traditional adult world. According to the study, "the ability to support and thus form a family has declined. In the industrialized economy of the first half of the 20th century, most men were able to attain such independence by age 20,"
Not so any longer. The research indicates that, in our modern world, 25 year old men in all age groups are likely to remain single and childless. The same holds true for women. Having children has been postponed, as has the thought of putting down roots in a community. The study states that the young avoid standard societal paths - the house, job, wife and kid thing - not because of a Peter Pan complex, but rather because of an unstable job market, and the intense competition for what decent jobs are available.
This may be a first - most such studies strike me as nonsense - but I find myself agreeing with this one.
Face it; employers are jerks these days. Pay is low. Most firms instantly replace anyone who fails to behave like an unquestioning drone. They downsize (aka: fire, terminate, can) with abandon. They force employees to perform extra hours without pay, to take on the tasks of two or three people, also without extra compensation. Not always, but often, America's employers treat workers as disposable soft drink cans...they buy them, drain them, toss them away, and grab another from the shelf.
You can't trust that a promised pension will be there. Hell, you can't trust that you won't be "downsized" two weeks before you are ready to start collecting that pension. You don't buy a house because you'll probably have to move, several times. You don't have kids because you can't afford them. You may have to go back to school, just to compete. You never know when you will be on the street, based totally on the whims of corporate entities who squeeze the stone for a bit more profit.
The present corporate mindset leads to much more than personal frustration on the part of those who man the trenches. New ideas or novel methodologies are presented infrequently, as employees do not wish to risk their job by drawing attention. Middle managers act as bean counters...keeping their heads low as well. Upper management simply looks at ways to cut expenses, usually by cutting the workforce. Those who get ahead are more often blessed with dandy contacts and the ability to brown-nose than they are intelligence, talent, motivation or insight.
Which bring us back to the definition of "maturity." I hear comments that, because of their free-wheeling lifestyle, moving from place to place and job and job, the young are immature. Conventional wisdom holds that the young should settle down, have a family, hold a job and get a life. That they don't, goes the argument, proves their immaturity.
Hmmmm....lets think about this. A young man or woman doesn't get married or have kids because, in our employment climate, they know they can't manage to raise and support them properly. They instead allocate time and funds to more years of education, for a failure to do so will leave them with few options save learning to enunciate the phrase "want fries with that?" They move from job to job, seeking a higher wage, not out of mercenary rationale but rather because they have seen first hand that loyalty to employers means less than nothing. Granted, they do purchase more toys than previous generations, spend more on entertainment. However, I suspect that's because they know a new car or plasma TV is not going to suffer a negative impact when they suddenly have to move from LA to Omaha. Such things will not scream of hunger in the night should they suddenly find themselves without income, scanning the want ads.
Frankly, this is a very sensible route, realizing the facts for what they are proceeding accordingly. It may not be pretty, but I would call it pretty mature.
I'd call the present corporate theology that causes such a scenario something else entirely, but it's not something you can print.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ron Marr
