I don't believe that I said the younger generations are "lazy".  I said that *many* of them are entitled and spoiled, which in my experience is the case.  Heck, my generation was spoiled compared to my grandparents. 

Anyway, much of the evidence for this is anecdotal in nature.  I'll provide another example: when we go to a fast food restaurant, 90% of the folks working there are either young minorities or older white folks.  I rarely see white, pimple-faced teenagers like back in the 80s and 90s.  I and my peers back in the 80s worked the sh** jobs for minimum wage and hated every second of it, but most of us didn't have parents who spoiled us, so if we wanted money, wanted to drive, or go to college, we had to work.  I see a lot less of this nowadays.

Now, this doesn't mean they're lazy.  What it means is that many of them choose not to do these jobs, and they don't have to because their parents don't make them.  Many of them won't do anything unless it's the particular type job they desire, and this to me is one definition of spoiled.  They've been conditioned to believe that because they have a university degree, they are entitled to a 6-figure job in an air-conditioned, comfortable office environment.  The sad truth is that college degrees don't mean much any more unless they're in an engineering, technical, or medical discipline.  Degrees in business administration/management, psychology, marketing, communications, liberal arts, political science, gender studies, social sciences, etc. aren't worth squat any more, but those are the more popular ones, likely because they're not so hard to achieve, but, hey!, look at me!, I'm a college graduate so I'm special! - sorry, you ain't.  Jobs requiring manual labor or difficult schedules are generally shunned by younger people, which is one reason why there is a shortage of factory workers and trade jobs.  I had to do jobs all through my teens and 20s that I didn't like, but I wanted to be independent and make it on my own so I had to.  

Americans have been taught for decades that they are special, "exceptional" even.  All they have to do is get a college degree paid for by a big govt. student loan that they may not even have to repay, or just paid for by someone else period, and then they can have a nice, well-paid, cushy job and live a pampered lifestyle while all their needs are met for them by poor people from 3rd world countries.  The harsh reality that this is a fantasy and could only be a temporary condition is slowly creeping in, and it ain't a pretty picture.

Dave

3 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I don't believe that I said the younger generations are "lazy".

 

I wasn't referring to you, Dave. 🙂 This thread is getting very confusing with all these opinions floating around. 

10 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I said that *many* of them are entitled and spoiled

 

Id say some but not the majority, perhaps a minority... and we don't have anything definitive to say which one of us is right. In your location and experience you might be right, in my location and experience I might be right. I don't think anything definitive can be gleaned from personnel opinion. 

Laziness is a subjective term. What's lazy to me might not be to you, and vice versa. 

Edited July 27, 2025Jul 27 by martin-w

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

I dont think that's something you would have to worry about, because Im sure you've done a fine job of raising your kids.

Still a work in progress 🙂

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

All they have to do is get a college degree paid for by a big govt. student loan

No student loan for me, paid my way thru University, the support I got from my folks was being able to stay at home for free until I graduated (4 year program).  I don’t have a problem with people getting a free education, an educated populous is a more productive populous … making education more accessible is good FOR ALL.

 

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

This thread is getting very confusing with all these opinions floating around. 

You original video post was an “opinion”.  You admit your exposure in the working world is “not relevant”, seems like you’re just trying to control the narrative.  And why would you feel “offended”?  You admitted it’s an exchange earlier in your post.

I provided examples of how “social media” has impacted the younger generation in a negative way, aka getting a good paying job where they can afford to buy a home (if that’s what they want in life).  You may not agree, which is fine, but you “opinion” is just that … the same as mine.

I’ve never had a job where I’ve been able or even wanted to “coast” along.  Even if I optimized my job such that it afforded me “free time”, I would use that time to either learn something new that could be relevant or find ways to further improve efficiency and/or performance and/or revenue of the company that is paying me (often resulting in large year end bonus from the increase revenue generated).  I’ve been in several positions where the company’s revenue was a direct result of my work effort … quantified.

56 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

You original video post was an “opinion”.  You admit your exposure in the working world is “not relevant”, seems like you’re just trying to control the narrative.  

....and yet your narrative seems to have been to turn this thread into a chest beating piece centred on what a shining example you are?

No doubt you're worshipped by your co-workers.

Can we take it you have had no personal experience of parental responsibility?

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

I’ve been in several positions where the company’s revenue was a direct result of my work effort 

Line taken from every resume you ever read.  There's a reason for that line:  we've all done it (unless we were in a total support role).

Running payroll:  support.  We did not sell payroll services.

The guy who attaches car door handles on an automotive assembly line is contributing directly to the company's bottom line as his efforts will be sold.

The device drivers I wrote were part of a product the company sold.  And so forth.

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

Even if I optimized my job such that it afforded me “free time”, I would use that time to either learn something new that could be relevant [etc.]

Just because I streamlined my database rebuild job didn't mean I sat around reading newspapers.  I had other duties as well.  When everything else was done, I grabbed a self-teaching book on FORTRAN from the Pentagon library and taught myself that language.  Then I wrote practice code.  And lots of other stuff.  I stayed after hours to work on some of my own learning projects.

I also taught myself BASIC as we had one program written in that language. (One of the officers outside our agency had written it.)

The opportunities were immense and I wasn't going to waste them.  This started in 1976, before personal computers were common.

The only time I ever had nothing to do at work was when I completed a contract job a month ahead of schedule, and they kept me around to fix any problems found.

Hook

Edited July 27, 2025Jul 27 by LHookins

14 hours ago, SayAgain said:

You original video post was an “opinion”.  

 

My point is that when me, you or anyone expresses an opinion on whether a particular generation is lazy or not it's pointless, as laziness is a subjective term, and in addition, generalizing isn't valid when the evidence we cite is based on our own limited sphere of influence. Thus, arguing about such things is pointless.

In terms of the video, the guy is an individual who is qualified in this field. Now, he may be right and he may be wrong, he may be just trying to sell a book, or maybe he is basing his opinion on research, not "what it is like where I work, or where I live," And of course, he was referring to mental illness in young people (a VERY serious issue) not... "i think young people are lazy."

 

Quote

You admit your exposure in the working world is “not relevant”,

 

 No... I said nobody's is if we try and generalize, but based on just our own limited sphere of influence. Remember.... you generalized, you didn't say your opinion was based just on where you work, or just on the people you interview. 

 

Quote

And why would you feel “offended”?  You admitted it’s an exchange earlier in your post.

 

Wrong! You are misrepresenting.

Hook used the term "what goes around comes around." I did not all all say that I expected to be looked after by my kids in very old age. Not for a second did I say that. However, Hook was absolutely correct, in that if a person is averse to living in a retirement home when they are no longer capable of looking after themselves, and would desire to be looked after by their kids... that may be less likely if they ejected their kids from the family home, in either subtle or not so subtle ways. Hook's point was a valid one.

As for being offended... it's not nice to accuse somebody of regarding their relationship with their kids as some kind of cold transaction, like, I give you this but you must give me that. Such a thing is distasteful. I've made  sacrifices for my kids as most parents do, while not expecting anything in return.

 

So do you actually have any kids? 

And when you've answered that, maybe we should get back on topic before a moderator locks the thread. 

Edited July 28, 2025Jul 28 by martin-w

Someone's been a little vague and disingenuous.

Ok, to the original question.  Has there been a shift in mental health in young people, and is it due to screen time?

I don't have a cell phone.  My dear wife does, and has gotten to the point of being on it a lot.  More than she watches TV sometimes.  Has this affected her mental health?  Not that I can tell.

The screen does lure people in.  Same as TV did when we were kids ("The Plug-In Drug") and Avsim does now.  Does our "screen addiction" affect our mental health?  Well, it probably depends on who else is posting. 😄 

Do young people spend too much time on their screens?  Yeah, and they spent too much time on TV before cell phones and tablets.  Has it affected their mental health?  Not that I can tell.

But something appears to have affected their mental health.  I discovered a possible cause circa 10 years ago when I was in the Sims 2 community.  

One of my online friends was a young guy living in Mexico city.  He'd never seen snow in real life and asked me if it glowed like it did in the game.  "Yes!!"  And we went on to describe how it felt, both in game and in real life.

At this point I have to bring up a forbidden topic.  I will not advocate for or against in this post.

The young gentleman expressed dismay in the fact that the snow would eventually disappear everywhere due to shifting weather.  Also that the shifting weather would wipe out civilization, probably in his lifetime.  Imagine living with this every minute of every day as a young person.  Do you blame them for not caring much about the future because of this?

We lived through the threat of nuclear holocaust, but it wasn't a given  that it would happen so we got by.  But if young people are told that the world will basically end in their lifetime, why bother?  With anything?  Might as well doom-scroll their screens all day, and it would be utter insanity to take a job you hate just to have a job.  It's not laziness, it's imposed apathy.

The adult equivalent is the falling birthrate in the Western nations.  Why bother bringing a kid into this?  Many of us felt the same when we were young, but we had kids anyway.

Sorry to have brought this forbidden topic up, but it's possible many people never thought about it.

Many people will disagree, but it doesn't matter what you or I think.  It matters a LOT what he thought, and others of his age still think.

Hook

 

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

In terms of the video, the guy is an individual who is qualified in this field.

I've noticed that you tend to put much faith in the pronouncements of so-called "experts" or "authorities".

I used to be this way as well because it makes sense, that is, these folks have spent years studying a particular discipline and were awarded an academic degree in the field, therefore they must know what they're talking about.

What I've come to realize over the past 20 years or so is that the "experts" are frequently wrong.  Whether it be economics, medicine, psychology, history, and other sciences, the academics and "experts" have been proven wrong many times, and good luck getting them to admit that they were wrong.

Now, I'm not happy about this as it leaves us with a big dilemma, that is, if we can't trust and rely on the experts, then where do we go for knowledge and guidance?  I honestly don't know.  What I do know is that I will never take what they say as dogma and established fact again.  I will consider their opinions, but will also do my own research and seek out other opinions.

Dave

5 hours ago, LHookins said:

But if young people are told that the world will basically end in their lifetime, why bother?  With anything?

This attitude and behavior is part of the Plan.

I won't deep dive into all this as it would take too long, but suffice it to say that there are very powerful and wealthy people who have implemented policies and spent billions of dollars to demoralize young people precisely so that they will not want to have children.

Bill Gates is a huge player in this, as he wants a massive depopulation of the planet.  Ironically, he has spent years claiming to help people and cure diseases and such, all while pushing for depopulation. 

The recent bioweapon that spread around the world managed to kill millions and the supposed cure has killed more millions, but this was really just a test run for a larger plan which I pray will be thwarted.

Just check out Event 201 and you'll understand how all this is intentional and planned.

Dave

This video came up on my list a couple of months ago.  I believe it hits every forbidden topic on Avsim, so watch it at your own risk.

The scariest thing he mentions is the attitude of "the end justifies the means."  You've probably seen this fairly often.

Hook

20 hours ago, LHookins said:

Just because I streamlined my database rebuild job didn't mean I sat around reading newspapers.

Actually, I was required to read newspapers.  I was in the Army.  Every promotion board, every awards board, included questions on "current events."  It was recommended to read the entire first page of the local newspaper (The Washington Post, the Star was less important) and I did leading up to every board.  Unfortunately they asked one question that wasn't on the first page.  Didn't matter that much, I got promoted anyway. 😄 

Hook

Earlier I was comparing "screen time" with watching TV and said my wife was on her smart phone as much or more than she watched TV.

She's currently in the next room watching some inane quiz show on TV.  I'd much prefer she was doom scrolling.  The commercials are less annoying than the show.

I've got a link to a white noise generator on my desktop for those times I need to drown out the TV.  For my ears in their current state, "brown noise" works the best.

https://www.tmsoft.com/white-noise-player/

Maybe this will help someone else in the same predicament. 

Hook

18 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I've noticed that you tend to put much faith in the pronouncements of so-called "experts" or "authorities".

 

 

You took that quote out of context, Dave, and you didn't pay attention to the second sentence. I provided several options.

I said "In terms of the video, the guy is an individual who is qualified in this field. Now, he may be right and he may be wrong, he may be just trying to sell a book, or maybe he is basing his opinion on research," I didn't state which I thought was more likely. 

What i consider is two important concepts. Those concepts are "probability" and "likelihood." Yes, qualified experts do get things wrong, no human being is infallible, but we don't expect Mindy, the hairdresser who lives down the street, who knows nothing about car engines, to accurately diagnose an issue with a cars engine. What we do is consult a qualified mechanic who it far more "likely" to diagnose the issue correctly. 

 

The likelihood of a highly qualified expert making a valid point is far more "likely" than an unqualified guy on the internet, especially a conspiracy theorist. 😏

 

18 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I will consider their opinions, but will also do my own research and seek out other opinions.

Dave

 

That's fine, but be VERY careful where you get those other opinions from. 

 

18 hours ago, dave2013 said:

What I've come to realize over the past 20 years or so is that the "experts" are frequently wrong.

 

Depends what you mean by "expert" There are some fields that are more likely to generate error than others. As you probably recall, I have a great interest in exercise science, in particular muscular hypertrophy. Well, in this field, the studies involve ridiculously low sample sizes, literally a handful of participants, and ultra short duration, often just 8 weeks. Then there's the issue of being able to measure hypertrophy with an ultrasound that often depends on the interpretation of the technician doing the scan. Error is far more likely than a gold standard study in a different field.

So you'd need to be specific about what kind of expert you mean. If you mean in a scientific field, then yes, all science contains a degree of error, that's unavoidable... but as for "frequently" that's a relative concept, and relative to an unqualified individual on the internet, or  a guy on the internet that claims to be an expert, or an individual who is obsessed with conspiracy theory.... orders of magnitude fewer errors.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2025Jul 29 by martin-w