Did Republicans Break the Millennials?

Threedee said:
Maybe because there was never anything funny about the mass murders and atrocities of the Marxists, or their sympathizers and enablers. Actually, it's all much funnier post-1991.
Click to expand...

No there wasn't, and since I had relatives in the Gulag I am aware of that more than most.

I am not sure who you meant to respond to, but my point was that it takes a person of extraordinary dishonesty to attempt to link the American Democratic Party - to attempt to make them witting accomplices- to the crimes of Joseph Stalin.
 
Jarod said:
I was born before my time, I would have fit in much better with this generation.
Click to expand...

Says the douche who claims to earn $400,000 a year, lives in a gated community, drives a mercedes and takes his spawn to Disney World while his community is suffering from a hurricane

ROFLMAO
 
cawacko said:
A non agenda driven school would teach our kids government jobs are the key to your future success? Lord help us all
Click to expand...

You misunderstood. A non-agenda-driven school would inform kids about American history. Part of that history involves the path government work has provided many to enter the middle class. From an historical perspective, that's not a controversial idea. For example, a good portion of those who were the first in their family to go to college, in the 20th century, did so thanks to the GI Bill -- a benefit associated with their government employment. That provided a path for many whose families had been poor to rise up into the middle class. The steady, middle-class incomes and decent benefits of many government jobs have similarly served as a route to the middle class. That doesn't mean it's the ONLY route. But when you mostly close down that route for a generation, it disrupts a long-standing feature of the society, and it shouldn't be surprising if that generation then develops different ideas about upward mobility.
 
archives said:
I wouldn't say the younger generation, just as those before it, are that ideologically invested to frame years of austerity as the basis for thier current beliefs

Their young, anxious, view everything optimisticly, and see Gov't as the solution to many of the problems afflicting the current society. For example, they see millions without health care and don't understand why the Gov't can't do anything to remedy the situation. Being educated, they are smart enough to know letting the market address handle the situation isn't, nor has ever, addressed the problem, which brings us to where we are today

Perhaps they are not all wrong, but as someone above mentioned, most start out this way and in aging evolve to more moderate positions in time
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see the pace of "conservatization" of Millennials relative to prior generations. That should be fairly easy to track with good enough data sources. My guess is that it's proceeding more slowly, just based on the data I have seen. For example, if you look at exit polls from the 2018 mid-terms, the Republicans got absolutely manhandled among 30-somethings..... the portion of the Millennials we should expect to have drifted almost to the center. In fact, they even got manhandled by the 30-45 block as a whole, which tends to go for Republicans, historically.

Look at it this way. In the 1994-2010 House elections, 30-45 year olds broke for Republicans five times and for the Democrats twice, and broke 50/50 the other times. All those cycles were close for that demographic -- in fact, going all the way back to 1982, the only significant margins in those age brackets were 10 points for the Republicans in 2002 and 10 for the Democrats in 2008 (riding Obama's coattails). In 2018, despite mid-terms typically favoring Republicans, it was a 19-point margin for the Democrats with that age group.... nearly twice the highest margin on record. The older millennials are voting liberal in a way that people in that age range never have before (at least in over four decades -- I don't have earlier data). If they've drifted right, relative to where they were a decade ago, it's hardly noticeable.
 
Oneuli said:
You misunderstood. A non-agenda-driven school would inform kids about American history. Part of that history involves the path government work has provided many to enter the middle class. From an historical perspective, that's not a controversial idea. For example, a good portion of those who were the first in their family to go to college, in the 20th century, did so thanks to the GI Bill -- a benefit associated with their government employment. That provided a path for many whose families had been poor to rise up into the middle class. The steady, middle-class incomes and decent benefits of many government jobs have similarly served as a route to the middle class. That doesn't mean it's the ONLY route. But when you mostly close down that route for a generation, it disrupts a long-standing feature of the society, and it shouldn't be surprising if that generation then develops different ideas about upward mobility.
Click to expand...

When you see the growth occurring around D.C. and northern Virginia because of the growth of government you know a generation is not being left out. Government exists to serve the people, not as an employment center. We face the same issue in education. Many view it as an employment center instead of the focus being on the children
 
cawacko said:
When you see the growth occurring around D.C. and northern Virginia because of the growth of government you know a generation is not being left out.
Click to expand...

Much of that is private-sector growth that's responding to DC having developed a critical mass of highly-educated people. Government work was the seed crystal for that growth, but it's largely driven by private-sector factors now.

Government exists to serve the people, not as an employment center.
Click to expand...

It's always the former and often the latter. The beautiful thing, though, is that it has generally been both at the same time. Even as it was providing a route into the middle class for millions, it was also improving the lives of the rest of us.
 
I Love America said:
Says the douche who claims to earn $400,000 a year, lives in a gated community, drives a mercedes and takes his spawn to Disney World while his community is suffering from a hurricane

ROFLMAO
Click to expand...

I do not live in a gated community, don't drive a Mercedes and hate Disney World.
 
Cypress said:
No there wasn't, and since I had relatives in the Gulag I am aware of that more than most.

I am not sure who you meant to respond to, but my point was that it takes a person of extraordinary dishonesty to attempt to link the American Democratic Party - to attempt to make them witting accomplices- to the crimes of Joseph Stalin.
Click to expand...

I believe Stalin's preferred expression was "useful idiots."
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Millennials are indeed different.

I'm a hard left progressive liberal, but at 72 years of age, I drive a seventy thousand dollar car, belong to a nice club, and don't believe in leaving all the trappings of a comfortable life to the right wing oligarchs. These things came quite late in life, well after the constraints of mortgages, aged parental care, kids' tuitions, and other commitments that responsible adults make.

I don't criticize less materialistic millennials if they do indeed exist, but I would have to ask...

What the hell are you looking forward to? If your vision of the future is so stark, perhaps the responsible thing for you is to not procreate.
Click to expand...

you have things on your brain

you may have never learned how to just experience life


it kicks ass all over more things
 
"Did Republicans Break the Millennials?" No. Their parents did. The gene pool naturally is thinning out. Wait until you see the generation they create. Ho Lee Fuch.
 
Oneuli said:
You misunderstood. A non-agenda-driven school would inform kids about American history. Part of that history involves the path government work has provided many to enter the middle class. From an historical perspective, that's not a controversial idea. For example, a good portion of those who were the first in their family to go to college, in the 20th century, did so thanks to the GI Bill -- a benefit associated with their government employment. That provided a path for many whose families had been poor to rise up into the middle class. The steady, middle-class incomes and decent benefits of many government jobs have similarly served as a route to the middle class. That doesn't mean it's the ONLY route. But when you mostly close down that route for a generation, it disrupts a long-standing feature of the society, and it shouldn't be surprising if that generation then develops different ideas about upward mobility.
Click to expand...

I think the GI Bill was primarily a benefit of military service. There has been concern that the aging federal government workforce can replace its workers because young people are less interested in those types of jobs. They tend to change jobs more often and having one job for a lifetime does not appeal to many of them.

I also question the idea of their consumerism--it is just a different type. Traveling rather than acquiring stuff is still consuming and very profitable to the travel industry. Advertising is still targeted at younger people because they spend more money on alcohol, fast foods, entertainment. A tv show with good ratings is dropped if the demographic is older. Advertisers must chase them down because their viewing habits have changed, so product placement is now a big part of marketing. They are more attracted to smaller "artisan" brands than the large brand names. Marketers joke you can sell anything to millenials if you call it organic, green, and sustainable.
 
Oneuli said:
You misunderstood. A non-agenda-driven school would inform kids about American history. Part of that history involves the path government work has provided many to enter the middle class. From an historical perspective, that's not a controversial idea. For example, a good portion of those who were the first in their family to go to college, in the 20th century, did so thanks to the GI Bill -- a benefit associated with their government employment. That provided a path for many whose families had been poor to rise up into the middle class. The steady, middle-class incomes and decent benefits of many government jobs have similarly served as a route to the middle class. That doesn't mean it's the ONLY route. But when you mostly close down that route for a generation, it disrupts a long-standing feature of the society, and it shouldn't be surprising if that generation then develops different ideas about upward mobility.
Click to expand...

mpZlHVY.jpg
 
Flash said:
I think the GI Bill was primarily a benefit of military service.
Click to expand...

Yes. And many members of that group of government workers were able to rise into the middle class thanks to that part of the compensation for their government employment.

A tv show with good ratings is dropped if the demographic is older
Click to expand...

I think that's for two main reasons, neither of which has to do with younger people consuming more:

(1) Older people are more brand-loyal -- they generally fell into consumer ruts years ago, so the chance of luring them to your product with a particular ad is much lower, per contact, than doing so with a younger person who doesn't have ingrained consumer habits. For example, if you're a 55-year-old who always buys Toyota, there's less value to reaching you with an ad for a car than if you're a 20-year-old in the market to buy your very first car. Not only are you more likely to succeed in altering the buying decision of the younger person, you're also more likely to forge a new habit that will pay rewards for decades down the road.

(2) Older people are couch potatoes. If someone lives her life camped in front of the TV, the value of reaching her with a given TV ad is badly diluted, since she's so very easy to reach with TV ads. By comparison, if someone watches fairly little TV, like younger people, then there's a premium on reaching her.
 
Oneuli said:
Yes. And many members of that group of government workers were able to rise into the middle class thanks to that part of the compensation for their government employment.
Click to expand...

Most people on the GI Bill were not government workers. And, a lot of that compensation went to college expenses.
 
Oneuli said:
Yes. And many members of that group of government workers were able to rise into the middle class thanks to that part of the compensation for their government employment.



I think that's for two main reasons, neither of which has to do with younger people consuming more:

(1) Older people are more brand-loyal -- they generally fell into consumer ruts years ago, so the chance of luring them to your product with a particular ad is much lower, per contact, than doing so with a younger person who doesn't have ingrained consumer habits. For example, if you're a 55-year-old who always buys Toyota, there's less value to reaching you with an ad for a car than if you're a 20-year-old in the market to buy your very first car. Not only are you more likely to succeed in altering the buying decision of the younger person, you're also more likely to forge a new habit that will pay rewards for decades down the road.

(2) Older people are couch potatoes. If someone lives her life camped in front of the TV, the value of reaching her with a given TV ad is badly diluted, since she's so very easy to reach with TV ads. By comparison, if someone watches fairly little TV, like younger people, then there's a premium on reaching her.
Click to expand...

You are technically correct the soldiers were all government workers. But most of those soldiers weren’t government workers prior. And most weren’t after their service was complete yet the GI Bill still supported them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top