Thursday, October 6, 2016

The Quiet Desperation of Millennials
























Even though Lambert and I dislike the use of marketer-created generational cohorts like Gen Y and Gen X, because age groups do not have political agency and the range of experiences within a group will be greater than across groups, a survey of 1200 Millennials by Ernst & Young and Economic Innovation Group shows how precarious their economic condition is. Admittedly, that is a long-standing feature of young adult life that is seldom discussed in polite, as in posturing-as-successful company. I recall two successful professionals in their 40s recounting how they lived paycheck to paycheck, on pasta, in their early-post college years, fearful that a personal emergency would leave them destitute (neither had relatives in the wings to bail them out; one was from a desperately poor family whose escape depended in part from someone making sure she got elocution lessons so as to eradicate her class markers; the other was estranged from his family by virtue of having come out). But for most college educated young adults in the post-World-War-II era, prior to the crisis, lean years in their 20s were a transition period, not a permanent status.

By contrast, this study shows that quiet desperation is a state of life for most Millennials. While the shock of the financial crisis did enormous damage to many people in all age groups, as anyone who lost their home to foreclosure will attest, Millennials faced a job market that left even normally-always employable new college grads out of work or employed at well below their potential as baristas, temps, or in low-level retail jobs. This has a huge impact on their lifetime earnings, not only by depressing income in their early years, but even when they find better-paid work, even then putting them on a lower income track than those that landed higher-quality roles straight out of school.

Read this short but important survey in full; it gives a grim picture. I’ve highlighted a few findings below (emphasis original).

Coming of age during a historic economic downturn has severely impacted Millennial life
30 percent of respondents live with their parents, which rises to 40 percent for single respondents.
Nearly one­-third believe their local community is still in a recession.

Stress levels run high for Millennials
78 percent of Millennials are worried about having good-­paying job opportunities.
74 percent are worried they won’t be able to pay their healthcare bills if they get sick.
79 percent are worried they will not have enough money to live on when they retire.
Only 6 percent of Millennials feel they are making a lot more than required to cover basic needs. For Millennial women, the figure is only 3 percent.
63 percent would have difficulty covering an unexpected $500 expense.
44 percent would dedicate $5,000 in lottery winnings to paying off bills and loans, signaling a struggle to launch, save, and invest.

One of the things I found sad is the degree to which Millennials have bought into societal hype about entrepreneurship. Historically, the most common trait of an entrepreneur was that he’d been fired twice.

The idolization of entreprenuership has bolstered the bogus idea that it’s a reasonable employment option for many people. I’ve heard far too many adults who’ve spent their lives on a paycheck argue that people who’ve lost their jobs should go out and create their own work.

As someone who has been in business for myself for 27 years, I can tell you that anyone who has a decent gig and can manage corporate politics should seriously question the idea of going out on their own. Independence comes at a very high price. Having a company take care of the large amount of grunt work in running a business, as well as considerably buffering your downside risk (like draining your savings and retirement accounts to keep a listing business going, as I’ve seen way too many people do), is worth a lot. As a colleague put it, “The difference between being self employed and unemployed is fine indeed.”

The myth that lot of people can sally forth and start a venture that will provide them a decent living serves as a convenient excuse for the failure to create enough jobs. Very few people have the temperament and mix of skills and experience (and luck) to make a go on their own. 90% of all new businesses fail within three years. And it’s also hard to make partnerships work.

Yet Millennials romanticize entreprenuers as successes when the data consistently shows that most fail:

Few Millennials may be starting businesses of their own, but the generation deeply admires entrepreneurs
Millennials overwhelmingly (78 percent) consider entrepreneurs successful
62 percent of Millennials have considered starting their own business.
55 percent believe their generation is more entrepreneurial than past ones, even if the data say otherwise.

The biggest obstacle keeping Millennials from starting their own business is money
42 percent of Millennials lament that they don’t have the financial means to start a business.
Across demographics, white men are least concerned with finance, with only 40 percent citing it as the biggest obstacle compared to 53 percent for black women and 59 percent for Hispanic women.

While it may seem rational for Millennials, faced with a crappy job market and short job tenures, to try to pull themselves by their bootstraps, they much less likely to succeed than others who launch new ventures.

The most common characteristic of successful entrepreneurs, per extensive research by Professor Amar Bhide in his classic book, The Origin and Evolution of New Businesses, is that via their experience working for others, they’d identified a niche that was underserved and started a business to fill the gap. Young people with no or little business experience are unlikely to have the opportunity, on someone else’s nickel, to get a sense of how an industry works and identify opportunities. Nor will they have had much opportunity to learn other skills, like negotiating, qualifying suppliers, vetting and hiring professional services providers, and managing subordinates.

Nevertheless, despite the considerable distress of many Millennials, many are still hopeful about the longer term. While people have a remarkable capacity to endure, one has to wonder how long Millennials will remain acquiescent if most of them continue to languish economically while the top 10% and higher income strata continue to accumulate more income and wealth at the expense of the rest of us.











Why You’re Never Really Alone With Your Sexual Partner










https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE6_6DFNsVk
























The Breakdown of Rational Argumentation





































Since Hamid Dabashi is pursuing his slanderous campaign against Slavoj Žižek and his colleagues, from Michael Marder to Santiago Zabala, repeatedly spreading claims which were demonstrated to be clear lies, all we can do is repeat the facts. Dabashi begins his last text with:

“‘Fuck you, Walter Mignolo!’ With those grandiloquent words and the gesture they must have occasioned and accompanied, the distinguished and renowned European philosopher Slavoj Žižek begins his response to a piece that Walter Mignolo wrote…”

No reference is given – no wonder, since I, Slavoj Žižek, have never uttered the phrase “Fuck you, Walter Mignolo!”. (In a public talk in which I responded to Mignolo’s attack on me, I did use the words “fuck you,” but they did not refer to Mignolo: his name was not mentioned in conjunction with them; they were a general exclamation addressed (if at anyone) at my public.) From here it is just a step to elevating my exclamation into “Slavoj Zizek’s famous ‘Fuck you, Walter Mignolo’,” as Dan Glazerbrook did:

“The world of academia, too, has seen Europeans ‘lashing out’ at the suggestion that they are not, after all, the sole and divine arbiters of what constitutes social, political and philosophical thought: witness, for example, Slavoj Žižek’s famous ‘Fuck you, Walter Mignolo’ response to a suggestion that there might be more interesting philosophers than him in the (non-European) world!”

Note how the accusation is here individualized: not only do I privilege European thought, I even claim that there are no more interesting philosophers in the non-European world than ME!

Back to Dabashi’s text, some pages later, he writes:

“Žižek claims:
‘I am a man and what I have to recapture is the whole past of the world, I am not responsible only for the slavery involved in anto Domingo, every time man has contributed to the victory of the dignity of the spirit, every time a man has said no to an attempt to subjugate his fellows, I have felt solidarity with his act. In no way does my basic vocation have to be drawn from the past of peoples of color. In no way do I have to dedicate myself to reviving some black civilization unjustly ignored. I will not make myself the man of any past. My black skin is not a repository for specific values. Haven’t I got better things to do on this earth than avenge the blacks of the 17th century?’

This is all fine and dandy – for Žižek. He can make any claim he wishes. All power to him. But the point is the singularity of the world, his world: he claims that as a European he is responsible not just for slavery but also for fighting injustice. He is absolutely right. But so is the “black man” he just buried alive and relegated to the seventeenth century. He asserts prophetically that he is ‘a man’. One hopes he means this not just anatomically. But he is not the only man, either in body or as archetype. The ‘black man’, as he puts it, is also a man, a different man, in flogged body and in denied archetype. The black and brown person – male and female – also has a world, a contemporary world, the world that Žižek occupies…”

There is just one tiny problem: the passage quoted and attributed to me and then mocked as an example of my European racism and of my misreading of Fanon is FROM FANON HIMSELF (again, no reference is given in Dabashi’s text – it is from Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, New York: Grove Press 2008, p. 201-206.) So let us reiterate the point again: cases like these are not worthy of a detailed answer. If such slanderous lies convince anyone, then there is no loss in it for us, because we prefer not to have the support of people like these.

At issue is not only the dissolution of minimal standards for academic rigor — at least those of attributing a lengthy quote one cites to its actual author — but also, and more problematically, a kind of self-righteousness that causes Dabashi to assume that he is the embodiment of truth itself. By claiming for himself the status of a victim (if not of the Victim) as far as the colonial and postcolonial enterprises are concerned and by elevating himself to the level of a representative of all such victims, he deigns to speak from the standpoint of their suffering — and there is no arguing with the incarnation of victimhood as such!

Lest we forget, Dabashi is an endowed professor at one of the most prestigious universities in the United States and in the world, which hardly qualifies him for the role he allots to himself. None of us, “European philosophers” attacked by him, comes anywhere close to such levels of institutional power.

But that is not enough. Dabashi goes on to speculate (though he presents this as a matter of fact) on the colonial heritage I, Michael Marder, presumably keep alive by deducing my lineage from the academic post I hold at a Spanish university. He writes in the same essay: “Young European philosophers like Zabala and Marder, who think that as Europeans they own the world of ideas, feign the authority of their colonial forebears as if anything anyone says anywhere in the world is about them.” This statement echoes another one made earlier in the text, where the author claims that in our philosophical arguments my colleagues and I ignore non-European traditions “just as their forebears did with our parents’ labor, abused and discarded it.”

What does one say to such interpellation? That I am of East-European Jewish origin? That my ‘forbears’ did not colonize anything but suffered from pogroms, Nazi gas chambers, and every other imaginable persecution throughout Europe? That I experienced anti-Semitic attacks first-hand during my childhood in the Soviet Union? Rational argumentation indeed fails; it is suffocated by slander. And just as one cannot argue with a self-appointed representative of the Victim, it is impossible to argue with an interpellating authority, which in this case dons the mask of victimhood.

Behaving the way he did, Dabashi only confirmed the conclusions of my 2013 essay, “A Postcolonial Comedy of Errors”. All the reversals of position, role-plays, substitutions of characters, and so forth we have witnessed here are quite comic. The whole thing threatens to turn into a tragicomedy on one condition only, namely if Dabashi were to be taken seriously and, with his lies, to inflict irreparable damage on the field of postcolonial studies and, more importantly, on the intricate question of representation when it comes to the victims of colonial and postcolonial violence.





















Israel Seizes Yacht Attempting to Breach Gaza Blockade







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwPfOFTwH0Q

























Julian Assange - Wikileaks has the email to put Clinton in prison







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlkOn_OU4Kg



































Julian Assange Interview on U.S. Empire


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw6HrlnQRKg























Elizabeth Warren Starting to Regret Endorsing Hillary Clinton






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrhDLhGBhGI