« From the Gazeta Wyborcza, ‘Missile Shield Talks: How the Bush Team Lost Poland’
Jon Swift and Others on Satire-Gate (The Obama New Yorker Cover) »



The Barney Generation

July 15th, 2008
By PATRICK EDABURN

Print Print

Barney.gif 

One of the hallmarks of a civilized society is how they treat their less fortunate members. From the earliest days of American society we have tried to meet that noble goal. There has always been an unspoken understanding that ‘Society should provide the less fortunate with their basic needs’. This goal is correct and proper and I strongly support the basic premise.

However over the years the meaning of those words have gone through many changes, usually much needed ones but also often controversial ones.

For example the term ’society’ has changed dramatically in the past couple of centuries. At one point it meant mostly the private sector. Families, religious groups, private charities and the like were expected to help those in need. Sometimes local government might become involved but that was about it.

Then we saw the growth of the welfare state and the increasing role of the federal government and the decline of the religious and private charity groups. Today they exist in a balance, with most people agreeing that they should share responsibility (though still debating to what degree each side should be involved).

The term provide has also changed, at one point it was assumed that you would provide the needy with the means to obtain their needs (IE work) while today it has evolved to something of a mix,  with some people advocating that everyone should work for their needs while others suggesting that to require any work is wrong.

The term ‘the less fortunate’ has perhaps taken the broadest path of change over the years. At one point racial, religious and ethnic prejudices led to limitations on who was helped. Often moderately needy people would get aid while truly needy ones would be ignored.

Even the term ‘their basic needs’ has gone through a number of changes. If you were to visit a welfare agency at the start of the 20th century they would consider a bed, some clothes and some food to be pretty much all anyone needed to survive.

Today most people look to items like telephone service, television, etc as fairly basic needs. Again, there is considerable debate over how far the change should go but the basic idea that more than food/clothing/shelter is needed is a pretty common assumption.

However in all of the years of evolution there is one thing that has never happened before. People have never sought to remove words from the statement…… but that may be changing. For the first time I am seeing signs that people would like to remove the term ‘the less fortunate’ and require society to provide everyone with their needs.

I first saw signs of this when I began to talk with younger people who came in to my office to discuss their financial needs. Time and time again they talked about how ‘government should provide’ them with the money needed for everything they wanted in life.

I am not talking about just a basic place to live but rather a home as luxurious as they wanted. My parents worked hard to provide my sister and I with a house of about 1500 square feet, which was considered fairly nice by the standards of the day.

Today people expect homes of twice that size and don’t care if they cannot afford it. I have seriously had bankruptcy clients expect that they could erase their mortgages and car loans completely but still keep the property.

I have also seen this is some of my younger friends who expect to be able to buy any car, take any trip and get anything they want right now. Their logic is that someone else has it so they should get it too.

I consider these things to be signs of the Barney effect. These people I mention have been raised with the idea that everybody should be equal, everything should be fair. If you play a game there should not be a score kept because somebody might lose. If you have a competition at school then everybody ought to get a prize.

It is thus hardly surprising that these people now expect that they should be given everything they want or need as an adult. Of course there are many very hard working members of the Barney generation and hopefully they will overcome this trend.

If they do, then there can be much to gain from a generation whose desire to achieve is tempered with a sense of fair play.

If they do not, then we will continue on our trend towards a society where the many depend on the few, and that can never last.



This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 15th, 2008 at 8:01 pm and is filed under Moral Decline, Family, Moral Values, Change, Popular Culture, At TMV, Politics, Society, Social Commentary, USA, History. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 18 Comments

    • ^
    • v

    For example the term ’society’ has changed dramatically in the past couple of centuries. At one point it meant mostly the private sector. Families, religious groups, private charities and the like were expected to help those in need. Sometimes local government might become involved but that was about it.

    Then we saw the growth of the welfare state and the increasing role of the federal government and the decline of the religious and private charity groups. Today they exist in a balance, with most people agreeing that they should share responsibility (though still debating to what degree each side should be involved).


    But is this the classic chicken and egg conundrum? Did the creation of government systems really come first? Modern conservatives certainly believe so. It seems to be a matter of gospel to them. But it's equally possible that the government institutions they dislike so much and blame for so much came about because of their inability to deal with large scale economic crises. It was after all the Great Depression that saw the initial expansion of government services. Last night I was watching a feature on the local news with local food pantries pointing out their empty shelves and telling of how their donations have dropped and in fact people who used to donate are now clients.

    The definition of "society" has expanded out of a necessary recognition that we no longer live in a 19th century economy that is largely agrarian and in fact now no longer live in an industrial society where my dad could work for a company for his whole working life and just maybe I could go and do the same thing for the same company myself. We live in the land of relocation for career or just to find a job. A friend's son-in-law was caught up in a mass firing at Sprint (Let's be honest and not call it a lay off.) and had to move to San Antonio, over a thousand miles away from family to land a decent paying job. We live in a time of smaller families, with fewer resources to spare to be able to help relatives as much as many would like to. So admit to all of these changes when looking for reasons for people to feel the way they do, right or wrong. Simple answers are rarely right.
    • ^
    • v
    Good points Jim, to which I would only add this: Those members of the "Barney" generation I come into contact with all work and don't act as though they are entitled to anything special. The fact is, even when they buckle down and have dual incomes, it will be harder for them to realize the American dream in the way their parents and grandparents did, and most of them know it. So are there people who feel entitled to things they haven't earned? Sure there are, but reality will cure them of that delusion soon enough.
    • ^
    • v
    I have also seen this is some of my younger friends who expect to be able to buy any car, take any trip and get anything they want right now. Their logic is that someone else has it so they should get it too.


    They have been watching TV for the last twenty years and they have observed that people can have really crappy jobs and live very luxurious lifestyles.
    • ^
    • v
    This post is such an overstatement and oversimplification of life as we know it, I thought at first it was deliberate, and comical satire.
    Of course, if you take anything to an absurd extreme, it will, indeed, represent an absurd extreme. .

    Speaking realistically, though, I certainly hope that society has changed and so has our understanding of it. Conditions have changed, and It would be horrifying if we were unable to adapt to changes or to learn anything new about ourselves and our society in the process. In many ways, our undestanding is not keeping up with changes, because people mistakenly take the past to be inherently and unquestionably superior to the present. They are looking back at a golden age that never was all that golden.

    Without question , some modern trends are quite worrisome. On the other hand, some aspects of the American past were simply dead wrong. While some children may be overindulged and feel entitled to unearned praise and luxuries, the rigid and often harsh childrearing practices of the past often killed the spirit of many a young person, who then grew up to be an intolerant and harshly judgmental adult in his own right.

    We are looking for a golden mean, at least I hope we are, and the mean extends to extremes - in both directions.

    I don't follow at all what's wrong with being fair. Western culture, from sportsmanship in sports to the justice system, is based on the principle of being fair.
    That fairness doesn't always materialize is a hard lesson we must all learn. That it's smetimes impossible to be equally fair to everyone is another such lesson.
    It doesn't follow, however, that we should stop looking up to fairrness as a worthy ideal. Should we scrap the notion of justice as well, since that's not always forthcoming?
    • ^
    • v
    Of course nothing is wrong with being fair. If you will notice I make it clear int he first paragraph that I think it is very important for us to help those in need.

    My concern is that the younger people of today seem to expect society to take care of everyone, and for me that is a problem.

    But I did make it clear that if we can get the next generation to combine both a desire to work and an ideal of fairness for all that this would be the best goal.
    • ^
    • v
    There are tons of issues in this post that I can't take the time to address; however, as the post seems based upon Patrick's personal experiences, I thought I'd share one of my own observations. When I was in college about 15 years ago a few of my friends worked as they went to college, but some 50% or so were full time students. I now teach college a bit and every single student in my classes (undergrads) works. Most about 20 hours, but 2 or 3 in each class work full time and try to be full-time students on the side. Some kids come in half-asleep because they stayed out partying, but an equal number come in because they were doing overnight inventory at the Gap. I don't have stats on any of these things, so I don't know how my experience matches up with people at large. My point is just that your experiences and mine make up a rather complicated experience for younger people.
    • ^
    • v
    "Today they exist in a balance"

    Phffft. The federal government alone dwarfs private organizations and is seen as a surrogate parent, not merely an extension of one's family. "Cradle to grave security" is the expectation of too many nowadays.
    • ^
    • v
    "an industrial society where my dad could work for a company for his whole working life and just maybe I could go and do the same thing for the same company myself"

    This is an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation (decades out of date, in fact; worse still is the "thirty years and out" with a lavish pension and retirement benefit package to be enjoyed for 25-40 more years of one's life) and certainly doesn't create any "need" for government assistance programs to substitute for this.

    "had to move to San Antonio, over a thousand miles away from family to land a decent paying job"

    There's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes you have to move. There is no "right" and it's certainly not reasonable to expect to get another good job where one currently lives or where one prefers to live. That's especially true if where one lives, jobs are being killed through mistaken policies, including overly expensive as well as intrusive government. In some parts of the nation, roots are deep and people don't wish to leave where they grew up or spent their youth, but sometimes you have to do it if that's what it takes to get a good job, if the growth and the jobs are elsewhere.

    * * *

    "My concern is that the younger people of today seem to expect society to take care of everyone, and for me that is a problem."

    In addition, there is an anticipation that the work won't be hard and the pay will be great, right out of school. That may be true on teevee (I don't know the details, as I've avoided watching television for ages), but not in the real world.
    • ^
    • v
    "For the first time I am seeing signs that people would like to remove the term ‘the less fortunate’ and require society to provide everyone with their needs."

    The most ambitious liberals and radicals thought that was possible and going to happen in the 1960s but reality intervened.

    Sometimes, though, I believe we'd be better off if we scrapped all the existing programs and bureaucracies and replaced it with a true income redistribution scheme, where there would be flat or progressive income taxation the revenue from which would be, among other things, redistributed in part to give everyone a poverty-level or other suitable identical stipend. That is, a dream of the radicals then and among some still today, a Guaranteed Minimum Income or Basic Income Guarantee, achieved through direct, pure income redistribution. This would be done in place of all the other programs we have today, which would be ended (only fools would want to retain all those programs, too). It would be a