▲ 58 points
back
46 comments
Born in 79 so I'm either X or millenial - don't really care.
I'm nostalgic about the times when tech was sought out and less pervasive.
This recent article[1] really made me nostalic about the "goold ole days".
The "boring" days.
Anyways, I feel less sorry for myself and more empathy for younger generations.
Growing up has always been challenging, before school shootings, and online bullying..
Now you can't escape the call(s) without it implicitly being interpretted as ghosting.
/r
[1]https://www.scottsmitelli.com/articles/take-oncall-and-shove...
There's a cusp between them, birth years '78 to '82. We're the Xennials, also dubbed the Oregon Trail micro-generation. We're the ones who grew up playing that on the Apple IIs in the school computer labs, and the other hallmarks of that tech era like typing in programs from magazines, and then eventually we formed the BBS scene before the internet.
We have the best of both ways regarding technology. We use it and we're comfortable with it and can pivot careers with it, but we also remember a time before computers and so we're not chronically attached to and dependent on tech. We have the detached cynicism of Gen X, but it's tempered with the worldly connectedness of the millennials.
I was born in 1984 and I consider that part of the Oregon Trail generation because I played Oregon Trail in school as a child. I didn't get my first computer until 1998. Before that I rode my bicycle around, watched nickelodeon where half the airtime was commercials, played with pogs, and life sucked! I was about as unhappy a child as you can imagine before I found the Internet and programming. Everything the tech industry does makes the world a significantly better place. So don't listen to these subversive treacherous nytimes clowns.
> Everything the tech industry does makes the world a significantly better place
Ever-increasing centralized surveillance/control makes the world a better place? I guess one might think that if one assumes they themselves will be part of the managerial class pulling those levers of power, like the New York Times staff for previous generations. Personally, I favor individual liberty.
I grew up on a computer, I was a child around the time you're describing, but was on the Internet & toying around on the computer. It kicked off a lifelong passion for technology & computers.
I would be hard pressed to say computers & the Internet are a net positive for the world. For me personally, they unlocked a passion & interest I haven't been able to find in any other domain. I have plenty of other interests & loves, but anything to do with computers is my passion.
For the rest of the species, where a computer is either a means to an end, a necessary evil, or a way to brainwash yourself, I don't view computers as something beneficial. The undiscerning get sucked into YouTube black holes & allow themselves to be swept up by bullshit they read on Twitter. It gave a platform to the absolute worst people among us, which would be fine if people would reject the garbage they're spouting.
Our collectively stupid ape brains aren't ready for computers. I believe we (the royal "we") moved too fast & poisoned our shared, objective reality. And that's all before I even start talking about the people intentionally making life worse with technology. Your Zuckerbergs & Musks & Ellisons, the people who use these machines as tools to spread suffering & chaos.
Technology has been a rising tide that lifts all boats. It enables people to have more impact being whatever it is they are. Some people have badness in their hearts. Just because they're using technology, doesn't mean the badness came from technology. It was already there. If that's what you choose to focus on, then it shows you care about those people. Why not just let them be as they are?
I thought I was pretty clear that I don't think technology is a net positive. There are many, many ways computers have been a huge positive for a great many people. I'm still not convinced it's an overall "good" thing we've put into the world.
I'm focusing on the negatives right now because how can I not? The people who have introduced all this technology are weilding it for bad things & negatively impacting my life & many others. The negatives are currently front & center, hard to ignore or deny.
What have the technologists done that's hurt you?
"Everything" is a pretty big word...
Take this on-call rotation and shove it (scottsmitelli.com) | 180 points by mirawelner 1 day ago | 143 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43498213
The rampant destruction of jobs, career paths, and education going on right now from the very top feels drastically worse
The post war boom needed people, was a time of great building. That had created past a peak, and we no longer were able to exploit foreign labor markets and resources with quite such abundance by Gen X's day.
But today? We had a fantastic economy. Life was expensive as hell, but at least there were economic prospects, things to do, careers that felt worth doing.
But now, we are chainsawing apart the economy. Political speech-control is forcing companies and universities to behave certain ways, to eliminaye jobs and career paths. Healthcare, sciences, and international diplomacy are being gutted, dismantled entirely. With foreign students to afraid to risk the arbitrary injustice of ICE and potentially being sent to a prison states super prison, universities will lose one of their reliable revenue streams. These are going to massively impact jobs.
This story is a good one to remember, about a change, but the horros happening now are utterly self inflicted, by people aggressively dismantling the New Deal and the post-wsr American Way of Life, eliminating enormous amounts of jobs & the career paths that started these jobs.
think its bad now... wait until TRIPs falls apart; https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-tariff-wa...
Gen X here. This author found the marginally productive people who can't read the room and adjust.
Us punk kids who photocopied their 'zines are doing just fine because we paid attention and moved on and then moved on again.
And the kids say: "skill issue, get gud"
As much as I appreciate the spirit of your comment I don't think you're being entirely fair here. Professional journalists had the ground disappear beneath their feet with no obvious exit strategy. It was even worse for photographers. Sure some managed to tread water for a while by switching to digital workflows but demand for the trade evaporated. I mean, just in our local area something like 200 small businesses went bankrupt over the course of a decade and a half. Before digital you couldn't drive 5 miles in any direction from any point without passing a photography studio, film processing joint, or both. Now to the extend folks even get prints made there are self-serve kiosks in Walgreens. When the music stopped there weren't a whole lot of chairs left and being good with $50,000 worth of photography equipment doesn't really prepare one for any other career track.
Tech never had these kinds of issues because you could simply cross-train on the next related tech stack and keep working.
We understand that change can be hard. But the article strikes me as a bit self serving and myopic. I seem to remember a distinct lack of compassion from the media when the steel workers and miners were all losing their jobs. The "learn to code" meme started as a flip remark dismissing their plight. Now we have the rust belt.
The rust belt started long before that. So much so that the term itself was coined in '84 by Mondale. And I also think you are fairly incorrect about the media, it's just that the destruction of American manufacturing started happening in the late 60s and 70s and waves after wave of layoffs and downsizing. The transition from an industrial to a service/information economy was handled by the zeitgeist before Gen X's time. There's a reason the linked article isn't talking about people who dedicated their lives to corporations. Gen X has never trusted corporations nor has it ever trusted government institutions.
> The transition from an industrial to a service/information economy was handled by the zeitgeist before Gen X's time.
That's not entirely accurate. Sure textile mills and foundries were on a downward trend in the 70s and 80s but it wasn't until NAFTA came along that the bulk of manufacturing industries offshored. North Carolina retained it's command of furniture manufacturing and the timber industry was thriving up the eastern seaboard until then.
North Carolina isn't part of the rust belt and NAFTA (94) is ten years after the term "rust belt" was coined (84) so it seems pretty inaccurate to think that NAFTA had anything to do with the emergence of the rust belt. It certainly contributed and accelerated the decline, but if it's already so bad that politicians are calling it the "rust belt" ten years prior to what you claim is the clause, there's an accuracy problem with the narrative.
The concept of industrial decline and loss of manufacturing isn't limited to the rust belt. You dragged that in with you in your haste to well actually someone and if you actually -read- my comment you'll see I advanced no claims at all about it. Parenthetically what's your level of exposure to manufacturing in the US? Ever had a job making stuff?
This. I am a gen X and still employed. Repurposed my mainframe knowledge into general tech then marketing.
Still kicking.
I’m not Gen X but every time I read these types of stories I feel the same way. You have to adapt and grow or you die, simple as that. People that think learning ends when school ends annoy the hell out of me as do people who think it’s reasonable to expect a job to always exist, be the same, and pay the same.
Times change, you can change with it or be broken by it. It’s a choice and people who make the choice to not grow, and then complain about it, frustrate me.
Same. I still remember almost getting suspended in high school for "hacking" the school computers in the mid 90's. Now I get paid as a security researcher.
Also have genX friends who do more tangible stuff like auto mechanic, architect, trucker, dentist and chiropractor. All are doing just fine in their respective niches.
Same. I’ve had a career that has gone from working on Novell > Windows > Cisco > Linux > VMWare > AWS > Kubernetes > Terraform > … whatever’s next.
Moving out’s the way to move up.
Sometimes in life there is a great delay between the FA and the FO
Am I the only one that finds these generation-related articles really stupid? Gen <put letter here> meltdown. There are stupid people in every generation. There are smart people in every generation. If the writer was in the second group, they would stop generalizing and sensationalizing.
If that were true; why are recruiters going out of their way to avoid hiring Gen Z without at least 5 years' experience?
Some generations are in a messier shape than others, in different ways. Even Gen Z managers describe their own generation as the worst.
Older millennial here. The "we're only hiring seniors" thing has was also true when I entered the job market. Nothing new about it.
Why hire a junior when the market is flooded with people with 5+ years of experience?
Record-breakingly bad opinions by employers is new.
As a member of Gen Z myself I can validate our generation is in a grim shape. Very few of us can still read properly, many with broken bs detectors, and fewer yet with an understanding of history. In the software professions especially this is a problem; with the embrace now of vibe coding being exemplary of the great confidence in mechanisms they do not understand fully, to the extent that they would trust what it writes without reading it. Such things would work for experienced technicians who see this as rote, but for such inexperienced people, they should not yet assume they know what correct looks like in many cases. This is not to say that there are some truly talented people, but in my work rehabilitating codebases, especially in the post AI era, this has become a big issue. Many are not aware of moral issues like that with Therac-25, and I pray we are not to replay such incidents.
A stupid person might genuinely write such an article.
A smart person might cynically write such an article, knowing the topic would draw eyeballs and thus money.
Ah so
authentic = stupid
manipulative = smart
I don't think so, no, I was just applying the framework proposed in the comment I replied to.
This article focuses a good bit of time on folks who work in marketing and journalism and specifically marketing agencies or print houses. Two things to really note there:
1. In Marketing you are usually either climbing the ladder and moving to management or you are out. No one can afford the experienced but expensive graphic designer, photographer, or writer. The skill-sets are too commoditized. And everyone is always looking for new fresh voices / design ideas. Agencies hire cheaper and younger talent that will put in hellish hours because they don’t know any better and don’t have family commitments. There is basically no one in marketing over 55 unless you are the owner or CMO. High burnout and not a kind career to families.
2. Marketing Agencies are a dime a dozen now and the business model is broken. You used to need a marketing agency to coordinate big media buys or to have access to the right people or equipment and the cost barrier and knowledge barrier to do it yourself was huge. So what you did was hire a really good marketing strategist and then they hired agencies to pitch campaign ideas and handle the production work, but the job moves too fast now to do that. The tools are ever cheaper and ever easier to use. Most companies have brought the bulk of the marketing work they do in house and maybe only work with an agency for a brand refresh or for a big nationally aired ad campaign.
Gen X is hitting the age where you are either executive in creative industries or you are out. Some of that is age discrimination, but some of it is just the reality that there is probably someone younger, cheaper, hungrier, and with fresh ideas looking to do the job.
Gen X spent their youth rejecting their parents’ world—only to watch it vanish and get replaced by something even emptier.
At the time it seemed like a solid bet. It was in no way apparent that there was any way to shoehorn even more bullshit into the status quo. We grew up with Ronald Reagan as president and grown-ass adults convinced Dungeons and Dragons was the pinnacle of devil worship (meanwhile satanists were dismayed to find out it was just math and improv). Important people thought Lee Iacocca was a good pick to run a car company. Reasonable people concluded that this had to be the nadir of society and culture.
it only got worse from there, although ~1990-2016 wasn't so bad
Wild. I've heard of the end of e.g. journalism for years, since Craigslist... but as a software developer I thought I'd be immune to these kinds of shifts. Never thought the (career) reaper would come for me, haha.
I have some friends in Hollywood... they say there's nothing left, and not even a side-gig in Albuquerque left to pay the bills.
Been looking for a job, but in this downturn there's nothing available. After the economy recovers I have ageism and LLMs to look forward to. My own career mistakes as well—they were teaching fortran in school and I wanted to hack on Netscape for pay instead. ;-) Seemed like the right call at the time, but turned out dead wrong.
This absolutely has not been my experience. I'm on the cusp of Gen X, but I had to turn away requests to interview after I added #OpenToWork on LinkedIn. I ended up with four full loops in a single week, and a hard choice between three offers. I definitely shook my network to get internal referrals, but once recruiting knows you are a real person, most companies move quick.
Submitting resumes without a referral is useless, you gotta work your network.
Great for you. I asked my network and got one phone-screen interview in the last six months, with the interviewer not particularly interested.
I'm mid-30s and think about this all the time. I went from psych -> economics and after being exposed to SAS/Stata decided to go into data analysis and then engineering. SWE looked like the picture of success at the time. I think about tail risk a lot and have been saving diligently for security and hopes of reclaiming my time from work.
As a member of Gen Z who grew up with cultural artefacts assembled by these people, I feel very much sympathy for their plight. I do not know why but this article gave me a memory of when I would read the funny pages and use my putty egg to take the pictures ink out and stamp them on paper. I remembered the witty computer articles that got me interested in the stuff at first, the thoughtfully made CDR games I played on my G4, the music and television they made that was so enjoyable. It seems with the loss of these people we're losing the tangibility of our culture, with it it's humanity, it's intentionality. Nowadays so many glyphs, stills and media are meant to just be eye-catching and appealing to some shared understanding, versus this identity that so many brands once had, that there was a feeling that someone was trying, granting you some comprehensive vision.
I read in the article that phrase that has been popping here and there in my zeitgeist:
"exit strategy"
Like watching that game at the venue and the score is very much settled and you asked yourself:
"Where did I park?"
The revolution will not be televised.
No flying cars for us but here, takes this gadget and play Sudoku until whatever will happen, happens.
So, “previously a shoot would cost 5-figure […] now a kid can do it for $500”.
“Soon we will no longer need musicians, due to rise of AI”.
“If a director can do it with AI writing I want X, Y, Z”
A strange pattern. In all three cases, are we getting a 1:1 quality or we are so lost in age of cheap quality that those does not matter?
I for one would not buy anything or pay a subscription fee, where the photo or the music was AI generated. If the creative content I want does not have a humane touch, it is not worth to me.
Also, while we are bemoaning the loss of fields and jobs, behind the veil lurks the age of wrong incentives. In previous era, when my parents were pursuing a career, a record breaking profit meant more expansion, more investment, more debt and new pursuit of possibilities. Now we live in a moral bankrupt feudal age, where despite record profits, layoffs and merger+shutdown are performed like a crazy to maximize stock price and top level bonuses. It all is just regression of society’s feudal lords too deep in greed to care about the future.
No one thinks anymore, here is my product, it is so cool and ground breaking, we must layoff more employees to also chase that another fad which will likely fail in a year or two but I get good bonuses and move onto another place before the consequences come due but then more layoffs can be done to pay for my mistakes. But eventually if enough people are being laid off, who will buy my products? How will my target audience pay for this thing if they don’t have a job? The economy does not work if the gains are not cycled again back to society and common folks.
Also welcome to the age of media control and mass manufacturing consent(thanks to Noam Chomsky for the concept), when enough media words and campaign can be bought to tell the feudal overlords what to do and what is the new trend in societal destruction in order to maximize their billion bonus packages in short term and leave the consequences to the future.
/rant off
> So, “previously a shoot would cost 5-figure […] now a kid can do it for $500”.
In terms of 1:1 quality, I think that probably is the case here, at least for what is being measured.
These photoshoots are for marketing. The yardstick against which they are being measured, is effectiveness at marketing, not critical acclaim or depth of plot.
The format that most efficiently and effectively reaches the intended audience, is the "highest quality", which yes does mean that purchasing 20 videos from assorted freelance tiktok marketers is more than "1:1 quality" with a single video that costs 20x as much.
I take your overall point but the primary purpose of marketing has always been to influence consumers. This is not the loss of some high art form.
This is just talking about how technology has consolidated industries that were before not consolidated: journalism, photography, etc. This same issue affects Gen Y, Z, A. I guess GenX had a career in those things because they existed when GenX was at working age. Gen Y, Z, A never had the opportunity to be a journalist, photographer in the same way GenX did in their youth or the Boomers or Tweeters had.
FWIW, I'm GenX and we all saw this coming in the 90s. I'm lucky enough to happen to have interest in tech, so I'm still alive, career wise. It was ugly for non-tech people even in the mid 90s. Hopefully on-shoring will be a thing again soon. Globalization + Tech really kicked the shit out of the US workforce.
Good luck everyone.