Pros And Cons Of The Roaring Twenties

Imagine the twenty-two-year-old, fresh-out of college, ready for life to begin. All his life, he was told to choose a career that he was passionate about, that he should never pick a path based solely on how much money it earns. Now, imagine that same twenty-two-year-old, that chose a degree in underwater-basket-weaving, his true calling! But he has one problem: overwhelming student debt. And how are his grievances received? He is rejected by all lawmakers, his parents, or anyone above the age of thirty-five, and is labelled as being “sensitive” or as a “pushover”. “Well son, you should have picked a more practical degree, like a mechanical engineer, even though I’ve told you to ‘follow your dreams!’” Paradoxes like these are why Millennials
The generation of the Roaring Twenties was criticized as being too careless with their money by their parents, and their failure to heed their parents’ advice led to the Great Depression. This is an example of when generational advice can be advantageous. However, this advice ceases to be useful when no solutions to the generation’s actual problems are given. Baby Boomers are guilty of this practice. Instead of listening with an open mind to Millennial problems and protests, such as “… student debt, a hostile economy, a highly polarized society, strained race relations, increased academic pressures…” (McClennon), Baby Boomers insist the generation is lazy and sensitive. It is common knowledge that schooling is becoming more available; after all, we currently live in the “Information Age”. Why, then, is it that the cost of higher education is increasing, rather than decreasing? These types of paradoxes confuse Millennials, and as a result, they are generalized as being “sensitive”. One Baby Boomer in particular, Robert Bly, states, “… they reject they without having read or heard them…” (60), when referring to simple fairy tales that were told to Millennials. The same could be said about the Baby Boomer attitude toward Millennial problems. As McClennon states, “… discounting the real anxieties of college students ignores the real
Some postulate that by not “hand-holding” the Millennials, it teaches them real-world application of problem-solving skills. However, this presents a logical fallacy, in that it is impractical to expect a Millennial to solve real-world problems, when all they are ever given in school to solve are abstract concepts, such as the Quadratic Formula. It is tantamount to asking a third-grader to do a multiplication problem; they might be able to do it, but they will not understand that multiplication is the addition of two or more groups of a given size. Other advocates of Baby Boomers claim that Baby Boomers are not the cause of the debt; rather it is the fault of the lawmakers. This is partially true, in that the legislatures did create and pass the law; however, because Baby Boomers neglected their ability to vote for different legislatures, or asking for a referendum on the issue, they are complacent in allowing the Millennials to bear their responsibilities. Lastly, some proponents argue that because Baby Boomers initiated some change, such as in environmentalism through “hippies”, that they are not immoral. However, this presents another logical fallacy. For example, “hippies” were considered immoral, as they often participated in drug abuse, and Dixiecrats in the south were advocates of extending discriminatory practices. Simply instigating some