This kid that turned down a 40K a year gig for something "perfect" is an idiot that deserves what he gets.
The first thing I would do if I was looking for a job is... get a job. ANY job. I've got an engineering degree, and I'd start flipping burgers or hauling trash or whatever just to keep working. THEN I would start looking for a more suitable career job.
It's pretty simple. As a hiring manager looking at two potential employees, one who is "waiting for the right position" and another that is "trying to get by", I go with the latter every time. The first guy is definitely out of touch with reality, and the second guy is doing what it takes to get stuff done. I want him working for me.
The "American dream" is basically the idea of open-ended opportunity, that is, that one can overcome barriers through hard work and resourcefulness to rise to financial success.
The generations of immigrants who came to America throughout the 1800s and early 1900s in particular did not expect to start at the top or to have some predefined path to success. They shined shoes, washed dishes, waited tables, worked on railroads, did whatever scut work was available, and stored up what little they got so that one day they might afford a home and be able to put their kids through college. That was not a universal experience, but it was a common one. Nothing glamorous about it. Yet, through hardship and sacrifice, they could advance - eventually escaping from the poverty that had marked their lives and those of so many of their compatriots back home. I experienced this first-hand in a family of Greek immigrants and we, as the kids in such a family, were never indulged but were expected as well to get delivery jobs, restaurant jobs, whatever, in order to help pay our way through school. We were all told to set our goals high but never to think of ourselves as being too good for the work we had to along the way, whatever it might be and however hard or unappealing it might be. That is how character is shaped to prepare you for the greater challenges ahead.
And so all I can say about your comment is "spot on." Thanks.
This is an entirely different country from what it was in the 19th century. Although early industrial America was brutal in a lot of ways that our society isn't, it was possible to "work your way up" then. Now it's not. The work environment in 1900 had a one-tier society-- with extreme inequality and brutality within that tier, but it was still only one tier. Line workers could become foremen who could become managers who could become executives. Now we have multiple tiers and it's nearly impossible to jump from one to another. The people who are running large companies today never worked "regular jobs"-- except during high school and college, maybe, where it doesn't count because career and lifestyle are not on the line-- they went into business school and, although they became "only" middle managers after that, they started on the inside track.
My family does the exact same thing, except a bit faster. My sister already went to college. My relatives are business owners of nail shops. Granted it's a only a single anecdotal point.
Beside, startups founders plunge automatically to "poverty" level just so they can start their own business and then rise to millionaire status or more if they's successful.
To do a startup, you have to be middle-class, at least, from the start, because otherwise you have no hope of getting the funding or building up the savings.
The most successful startups are an exception to the fact of American society being tiered, but these types of sociological statements always admit exceptions. If you want to see our tiered society in action, note how difficult it is to get venture capital and press coverage if you're not from an upper-class background, and compare it to how easily rich kids are able to get these resources.
You don't understand how press coverage works. Being upper-class has nothing to do with it, unless you are princess diana. You just pay people to do your PR. They get the story into the press for you. The PR people themselves are NEVER from upper-class backgrounds... it's a pretty ghetto occupation to get into in the first place. In fact they are usually from such limited backgrounds in the first place that half of them will do the work for almost nothing. (but it's the ones who charge a lot who you really want to hire)
You know nothing about the upper class. They don't need to hire PR firms (which is very expensive and unaffordable to a bootstrapped startup). They have their well-connected daddies and uncles make phone calls to get press coverage, etc.
If the NY Times want to write a story about an elusive American Dream they should write about us, the Dream Act students, who've been stuck in limbo with no job and no rights in sight because of our broken immigration system.
It feels absolutely devastating to graduate from college, hang that degree on the wall, and realize that you can't even open a bank account.
Plenty of illegal immigrants have bank accounts. At least around here (Bay Area) it's kind of a joke -- there's literally a separate line for illegal immigrants to do all-cash transactions. Presumably they use a fake SSN to open the account.
Also, there is nothing preventing illegal immigrants from going to college. It's unfair, however, for tax payers to subsidize their education even further when an American citizen who happens to be from another state must pay full tuition.
You are either misinformed or are purposely changing the facts.
The immigrants who open bank accounts open them using ITIN. Others, can't open a bank account because we lack _any_ documentation that is not expired. Our consulates are refusing to renew anything. Others, yet again, are stateless individuals and don't have a consulate period. Dream Act students often fall into these categories because they were brought here at a very young age.
There is plenty preventing immigrants from going to college. Tax payers are not subsidizing anything, because undocumented students cannot apply for any federal loans or financial aid. If you are undocumented and go to college, you pay out of pocket, period. There are only a handful of private merit based scholarship that are available to undocumented students. I'm one of the lucky ones.
Out of state tuition argument is moot and I'm tired of the misinformation around the issue. There are only 10 states that have legislation that allows undocumented students to be eligible for in-state tuition BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE STATE FOR AT LEAST 5 YEARS AND GRADUATED FROM A STATE HIGH SCHOOL. I've lived in New York State for over ten years, and my parents have payed taxes into the states treasury every single year. I am a New Yorker and the in-state tuition law recognizes that for purposes of tuition. So "Americans have to pay out of state tuition while undocumented immigrants can pay in-state tuition." is complete bull shit. Residents of the state pay in-state, out of state students pay out of state, undocumented or not. Fair and square, and available only 10 states.
You simply don't want to recognize that I am an American and a human being. If you see this issue for what it is, our fight for basic human rights, the economics of it all of a sudden don't feel that important. I am _American_, educated, and an aspiring entrepreneur. One day I just want to wake up and be able to breathe.
!. Illegal immigrants have bank accounts. I don't know specifically how they do it, which is why I said "presumably"... I just know that they do.
2. There is nothing, legally, preventing illegal immigrants from going to college. Yes, cost might be an issue, but to say that it is the US government's responsibility to make sure that a Mexican citizen, for instance, can go to college in the US is absurd.
3. I don't think you know what "moot"means.
4. In-state tuition is, by definition, a subsidy.
5. To say that "Americans have to pay out of state tuition while undocumented immigrants can pay in-state tuition" isn't bullshit... it's a fact by your own admission.
6. I recognize that illegal immigrants are human beings and that some are "Americans" culturally, philosophically etc. whatever that means. On the other hand, I don't think American citizenship is a "basic human right."
To be fair, hunting a job while in another job is much trickier. It actually takes quite some time to write applications and so on (that's how I remember it anyway). Not saying it is impossible, but I can imagine that "just take any job" could be counter productive.
Also, though a lot of people won't admit to it, he's putting himself in danger by taking a mediocre job. He can very easily be typecast into that sort of role for a long time.
Oh come on. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps if you don't like that. Find a hot new language and play with it in your spare time. Start an open source project with it. Contribute to the community. Then apply to jobs with that knowledge and skill set on your resume, and you'll break out of that role. Just have to want it.
Agreed, I worked in .Net and Java for a few years, decided I wanted to get back to PHP, started up an open source project, started talking about it and mastering the language in my free time. Now I work a PHP job that I love and I like to think having a couple thousand lines of example code out in the wild gave me an edge.
I recall another story about a girl who attended NYU and has a mountain of debt and can't find work.
At the end of the article it stated her major, and it wasn't something that was marketable in today's economy.
Which sounds slightly arrogant. As a reader, I can see the mistakes made. The reality in any economy is that a womens studies graduate from NYU is going to have more difficulty finding work than say an engineering graduate from a state university.
If the goals for employment are self-actualization, then be prepared for a hunt in the beginning. If the goals are to earn a paycheck - any paycheck, then there is plenty of work out there.
I am afraid that a lot of people in my generation have a very strong sense of entitlement.
I think there is much more pressure on young people today (me being one of them) that you must be doing what your love or working on your passion.
While good advice, some young people don't realise that this is good long-term advice. It's something you should work towards over a number of years. It is a very big mistake to close doors that may not offer the perfect path. I have some friends like this who seem to want the perfect job right away so they pass up other opportunities even though they could lead to it in the future.
There is also a lot more pressure on young people today to go amass piles of debt acquiring a college degree that they do not need.
The stigma against trade and vocational educations in this country needs to die, otherwise we're going to just keep starting people off at a bigger disadvantage than they need be for very little good reason.
I agree -- and going one step further, WITHIN higher education, there seems to be somewhat of a stigma against training for real-world, hands-on, applications. I was pretty lucky to attend a college that encouraged students to work on projects that could become viable products... but from what I hear from friends, it was the exception.
Just to provide another data point from my own college experience, I actually ended up dropping out from my school because I got fed up with the fact that their program focused too much on application.
This is a school whose computer science curriculum circa 2004 still included COBOL because one of the major employers in my area is the banking industry. (Coincidentally, the CS building carries the name of one of the big names in that field here).
CS is a field where the theory end of things are often the most important thing you could take away long term, so having that kind of focus on tools in general (let alone ones that are hopeless obsolete for most purposes) is just insane.
Like everything else in life, it's all about balance. That said, I can't blame academia too much for erring on the side of theory.
I agree with what you're saying -- I thoroughly enjoyed the pure theory classes as part of the CS curriculum. I also agree that it is more important to teach concepts than specific technologies. That said, I think there are schools that fail to teach concepts as well... things like working as part of a team, using source control and designing a product modularly and writing code which would be considered "production quality." There's a tendency to put those things off because it is "just for a school project."
"I think there is much more pressure on young people today (me being one of them) that you must be doing what your love or working on your passion."
That does work, but the key is that you just start doing what you love, possibly in your free time (chances are that when you start out, you're not good enough yet to get paid for it :-). If you keep that up long enough, and you keep enjoying it, chances are that at some point you will be good enough to get a job doing it. Case in point...
What does NOT work is sitting around waiting for a job to come by that you might like (like the guy in the article seems to be doing). Nor is it a good idea to live off of someone else while you wait.
The entitled douche bags may be in the spotlight, but our generation is perfectly prepared. We me be overlooked, but I say without hesitation that no generation has had such a wealth of opportunity before it and the means to make it real. 6 years out of college and the world has yet to blunt my view of the possible.
Another choice quote.
"Many hard-pressed millennials are falling back on their parents, as Scott Nicholson has. While he has no college debt (his grandparents paid all his tuition and board) many others do, and that helps force them back home."
I hope that NY Times readers do not just assume that Scott is typical of other members of my generation. Just about everyone I know has some form of student debt and are already starting behind the eight-ball. Scott apparently doesn't understand how fortunate he really is.
"Two-thirds (65.6%) of 4-year undergraduate students graduated with a Bachelor's degree and some debt in 2007-08, and the average student loan debt among graduating seniors was $23,186" -- http://www.finaid.org/loans
Or at least a more typical subject. The very fact that this person has a college education with no debt puts him at a steep advantage compared to most Americans his age.
Another way to read this article is that someone with this kind of advantage is still unable to attain their definition of success, therefore people that do not have this advantage are even worse off. Meaning, that this person needs to either become an adult and take any job he can get while redefining their definition or stop complaining.
Not that I agree with that point, there are plenty of people without this advantage that are very successful, but I suspect that this article is meant to be comforting to the many other privileged readers of the NY times.
He's working odd jobs and as a volunteer firefighter, so he is doing useful work. He's also sending out five resumes per week, which is a lot if he's actually researching the jobs and positions. (I know some people send out 200 per day, but let's not encourage resume spam.) It's not like he's playing video games 14 hours per day. So yes, he is sympathetic.
He's being selective about the work he'll take, but maybe he should be. Put yourself in the employer's perspective. Do you want to hire someone who'll leave in 12 months when something more suitable to his desired career path comes along, or would you rather that he "self-select" out?
A good barometer for whether a decent college grad should take a job is how elite business schools will perceive the work experience-- they generally require four years of real-world work experience in applicants. I'm not saying that everyone needs to go to Harvard Business School (I most likely won't) but that people should only take jobs that are putting them on the right track.
This article is insulting, this is not the American dream. The American dream has never been about the pampered children of the elite working their way through subsidized higher education and finding exactly the right job just out of college with no experience.
The American dream is about working your ass off and scrambling your way up the ladder. It's about entrepreneurism and opportunity. It's about hard work and determination paying off over time. Andrew Carnegie's first job earned lower wages than working at McDonald's would today, he became wealthy not because he sat around like a sad sack waiting for his pre-conceived dream job to come to him while he was sitting around in his parent's house, he became wealthy because he sought out opportunities and took advantage of what he could. Like many highly successful people he worked his way through several careers.
The American dream isn't about the guy in this article, it's about the guy down the street starting a lawn care business with a rented lawnmower who uses hard work and sound judgment to build it into a landscaping company with its own office and several employees. It's about the other guy who builds an online business in his free time and works days, evenings, and weekends in order to make his dream reality. It's about the opportunity to work your way from nothing up to a comfortable living if you're willing to put in the elbow grease. That dream is as alive as ever, and with the low-overhead of internet based businesses if anything it's seeing a rebirth.
While I agree that the article chose the wrong focus, I think you're wrong. Look at the American Dream on a societal level: while there will continue to be outliers, the fact is that today's younger generations are doing worse than their parents by many measures.
How on earth is that "as alive as ever"?
(More abstractly: I think the whole American Dream thing is a destructive myth, due specifically to its fixation on "elbow grease" at the expense of the many, many, other factors that play into success.)
I think that the degree to which younger generations are "doing worse" is due to upbringing and work-ethic far more than it is due to opportunity. Today's younger generations start working later, work less, stay at home longer, spend a lot more time pursuing vanity educations with no economic value, have out of control spending habits, and are generally bad with money management.
And even then most "younger generations" live much easier and more wealthy lives than previous generations. They still have cable TV, the internet, cell phones, cars, prepared food, etc, etc, etc.
Every single person I've seen with drive, a good work-ethic, and sound financial sense has gotten ahead quickly in America, even if they never achieved any education beyond a high school diploma. That doesn't mean they all become millionaires, it just means they achieved financial stability and have significant control over their career path.
> And even then most "younger generations" live much easier and more wealthy lives than previous generations. They still have cable TV, the internet, cell phones, cars, prepared food, etc, etc, etc.
Don't conflate access to luxuries with wealth. Very few will pay off their mortgages as quickly as their parents, retire as early, raise a family of their own as easily, or weather more difficult times as smoothly.
It remains true even if this is due to (to paraphrase your words) a generational gumption shortage; regardless of cause, it looks like the American Dream is fading away.
> Don't conflate access to luxuries with wealth. Very few will pay off their mortgages as quickly as their parents, retire as early, raise a family of their own as easily, or weather more difficult times as smoothly.
They're trading luxuries for wealth. In other words, they're trading luxury consumption now for house payments later.
It's unclear why that choice is somehow unfortunate. More to the point - the ones who don't make it are in the same position as their parents.
internet/cable: $50-100/mo, call it roughly $1k/year too
gaming: $250 xbox 360 or ps3 every 4ish years, plus maybe a $60 game every 3 months, call it $300/year
entertainment: 10 DVDs a year at $15 each, a movie in the theater every month at $10 a pop, call it $300/year
eating out: $20 including tax and tip every week, call it $1k/year
car payment: a cheap car, only $150/mo, call it $1800/year.
These are just SWAGs, but they are relatively conservative SWAGs compared to the way most 20-somethings live today. Nevertheless, add it all up and you get $4-5k of money spent a year on relative luxuries. Save that up and in 4 years you have a down payment. Then roll it in with what you'd be paying for rent and you have a mortgage payment. Keep your credit clean and you can start paying on a 200k condo even in a big city in no time. Once you build up equity and once your career has advanced and you're making more income you can trade up to an even more expensive house.
This isn't rocket science, but it does take discipline and sacrifice.
There's sort of two directions to respond in here. First, you're rather fudging the conclusion that cutting expenses to the bone has bought you a house -- better save for double the time or end up putting 10% or less down, which has been manifestly demonstrated in recent years to be a stupid idea.
More generally, this whole conversation has become one of minutia.
The fact is that moving ahead financially has become more difficult. Impossible, of course not -- but the sacrifice, shrewdness, and plain dumb luck required continue to grow.
You will have a hard time convincing me, or anyone else paying attention, that this trend is due to some sort of society-wide age-related motivational shortcoming, which seems to be your argument.
> More generally, this whole conversation has become one of minutia.
Getting ahead is often minutia.
> First, you're rather fudging the conclusion that cutting expenses to the bone has bought you a house
Actually, he didn't cut anyway near "the bone". Write down everything that you spend money on for a month. (Yes, including vending machines.) You'll be amazed, and you'll save a lot of money because you'll find that the benefit of many purchases is less than the cost of writing them down.
> You will have a hard time convincing me, or anyone else paying attention, that this trend is due to some sort of society-wide age-related motivational shortcoming, which seems to be your argument.
We're not claiming that you're lacking motivation. We're claiming that you're spending lots of money that you could spend on something else.
If you're anywhere near "hacker news typical", you're spending 2-3x as some of your neighbors.
"Somewhere along the line the “American Dream” became having a “good job” that pays enough to be able to afford to “buy your own home”.
...
Historically the REAL “American Dream” used to be to owning your own business and becoming financially independent, while working for yourself, controlling your own destiny."
I agree, seriously, how many successful startups have we seen spring to life during this recession? The American Dream is still alive and well if you have the right skill set. And that's the way it's always been.
The true meaning of American Dream is that you're "free" to pursue your dreams without government interference. You could argue that in that sense the Dream has diminished, but this author is way off the mark.
Rather than waste early years in dead-end work, he reasoned, he would hold out for a corporate position that would draw on his college training and put him, as he sees it, on the bottom rungs of a career ladder.
Prima donna.
At least he hasn't been doing any 'dead end' work for the last 2 years. However, he can put 2 years of professional job hunting on his resume. I don't think he understands, that 40K job is the bottom of the career ladder. You're not supposed to stay there very long.
I graduated college 5 years ago with a Poli sci BA from a state school. My first job was for $11/hr working on MS Pagemaker for the Wisconsin Medicaid website for EDS. Talk about soul sucking!
Now, I'm a senior software engineer at a VC-funded software company in Boulder. Needless to say earning a bit more and doing a lot more rewarding work.
Between those two places there are about four other jobs and literally thousands of hours reading programming books, working on "play" projects, making websites for my Aunt, Grandma, anyone who would let me, etc.
Best advice is to get out there, get any job, stay hungry, intellectually curious and never settle. Then stop worrying.
I hate to say it, but if you have been looking for work for a long time and turn down an offer.... You can't complain.
There is a saying about beggars and choosers.
I completely understand being in a job that I dislike, but a job that I dislike is better than no job and no prospects of a job.
A single position can build a resume and open more doors. This was a foolish mistake it seems. I would love to hear about a follow up. Did this guy land the job that he wants?
I am not American but French-Canadian. Perhaps my idea of the American dream was skewed by hollywood.
I always thought that the American dream was about determination winning over "old money". I thought it was having fewer roadblocks in front of you. I thought it was about having opportunities to prove oneself regardless of wether or not you have a diploma.
Am I so disconnected from this kid's worldview that I can't understand why he didn't take up the 40k? I accepted my first job realizing that it wasn't so much about the money I was making as the chance to prove myself out there. Prove myself I did. I doubled my salary within the first 5 years and got more and more interesting jobs as time went by.
This guy just has sense of entitlement. He calls it the American dream but either he doesn't know what that means or I don't.
Actually, upon looking again, I think that his grandfather has a point. My english teacher my senior year of high school strongly encouraged me to spend a semester biking or backpacking through Europe, taking short term jobs to support myself as I traveled. At the time, I thought she was insane, but that kind of perspective could probably do this guy lots of good.
I graduated a few years ago, and a common worldview in my graduating class was, "I've put X amount of work in my whole life, so I should hear back from jobs when I apply." It's a flawed line of thought, but it's not common to question things you've been told your whole life. The truth is much more subtle - hard work is important, but working hard towards a goal is what gets you jobs.
It wasn't very common to find someone who tried to make industry contacts, or who helped out inside of their department at special events, or who spent large amounts of spare time trying to improve themselves. They just signed up for a whole bunch of classes and worked their ass off in the classroom. Which is good! But it doesn't translate well into job offers
The kid in the article lacks the fundamentals for getting a job he wants, but at least he seemed willing to compromise on his lofty ideals and MIGHT accept a lesser job in the future. He should listen to his grandfather! "“Scott has got to find somebody who knows someone,” the grandfather said, “someone who can get him to the head of the line.”"
I was surprised to read this article, as it seemed to me from reading HN and other tech-related news sources that there are more opportunities than ever. Am I wrong?
From the article: he doesn't want to be an entrepreneur or work in small-fish business. He is set for building a traditional career in a finance corporation. A yuppie born into wrong era.
Well in Canada (Montreal city) they are a lot of student in Mangament/Finance and a lot less in other fields. People think finance is the "only" way to make big easy money now.
All the talk about the big bonuses in Wall Street during the US crisis sent the wrong signals, I suspect.
I daydream about working at a Wall Street bank from what I read here on HN occasionally about the paychecks (currently can't because I'm not an US or EU citizen)
I guess it depends on what you mean by "oppotunities". While the economy is still slow, companies are hiring. However, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that engineering/technology degrees are much more marketable than traditional liberal arts degrees, which can give those of us in the tech-space a bit of a distorted view of the job market.
That said, the article chooses to focus on an entitled douchebag.
I haven't finished the article but I'm guessing his resume isn't stellar or he has no networking. I had no problems finding a job 2 years ago but this may have been to me being a CS major.
Everyone I knew and still keep in touch with also found. This includes a few with < 3.0 GPA and many were business majors.
If you aren't a computer programmer, there are few jobs, even if you have a degree in something hard, like Physics. If you live somewhere like Arizona, there are few jobs even if you are a computer programmer.
I have a Political Science degree and I work as a senior software engineer.
My Dad has a degree in history, wanted to be a dentist and spent 30 years doing environmental contracting work.
People can't really expect to work in exactly the area they get their undergrad degree in, can they?
The guy from the article just needs to get real and realize that big boys get up in the morning and go to work whether they like it or not. That's called being an adult.
I think it's partly the universities fault for promoting this kind of "well rounded" education. You would have to think though that this can't be doing him any favours applying for finance jobs against people that actually did economics and similar.
I agree but then universities are businesses. It's in their economic interest for offering these degrees.
I still have university students in my social circle and I cringe everytime I meet someone that says they are studying political science or psychology or art or history or women's studies. Many of the degrees universities offer these days are only helpful if you stay within the university system and become a prof.
There is a mantra that I don't know where exactly came from, but my teachers in the 6th form (High School) all repeated it: it doesn't matter what you study as at university you are really learning how to learn.
We need to knock that on the head before we make any progress,
Agreed, this thought has some value but people need to realise that it doesn't mean that studying something then applying for another field puts them on an equal standing to those who studied in that specific field.
Universities don't promote this. Most humanities departments are fighting for their lives because of declining numbers of students and limited institutional support.
The #1 major in the USA is "Business."
Hacker News constructs this imaginary world of lazy "liberal arts" majors with degrees in french literature and can't find jobs. But, hardly anyone actually majors in subjects that people think of when they think of the "liberal arts." Only 27% in the USA even graduate from college at all. Thus in terms of actual numbers, there really aren't that many spoiled humanities majors loafing about.
Is this particular point so terrible? I'm 23 and am still on my parents' plan. The marginal cost of keeping me on their family plan is so much less than the cost of me getting my own line that it makes little sense for me to get my own, even though I could easily afford it.
In the context of the article, it reinforces the idea that he's spoiled - that while his parents continue to pay all of his bills, he turns down what most of us would consider a more than reasonable starting salary given this economy, his major, and his lack of experience.
I would assume that in your case (since you could easily afford your own line), you're at least reimbursing your parents. This guy isn't.
hah...I actually went to high school with that kid. My parents went broke sending me to a private school they couldn't afford, so I had the pleasure of growing up with spoiled millionaire future liberal arts majors. Do I take pleasure knowing that today, I forbid my parents from ever picking up a restaurant tab when we go out, and meanwhile his parents are still paying for his cell phone? Yes, yes I do take pleasure :)
“I don’t think I fully understood the severity of the situation I had graduated into,” he said, speaking in effect for an age group — the so-called millennials, 18 to 29 — whose unemployment rate of nearly 14 percent approaches the levels of that group in the Great Depression. And then he veered into the optimism that, polls show, is persistently, perhaps perversely, characteristic of millennials today. “I am absolutely certain that my job hunt will eventually pay off,” he said.
This writer should be doing over-dramatic stories for The Onion.
I think this kid's problem ultimately boils down to one statement: "He majored in political science and minored in history."
And he wants to earn north of $75k? Why? Because he read a lot of history books? And he's arrogant enough to say this to the NY Times? He might as well put a stamp on his forehead that says "Arrogant bastard. Do not hire."
These articles emerge like cicadas every few years, especially during temporary economic downturns. The definition of the 'American Dream' is nebulous enough that you can always, for the purpose of the story, define it as what today's kids won't have as easy as their parents.
This is the curse of coming from a well-off family: you can't imagine struggling up. And your mommy probably agrees that you're better than that. Maybe his father disagreed temporarily with his son's rejection of that job, but I bet the message he's been giving his son the other 365 days a year is that he's so gifted, talented, and destined for great things.
That said, I'd love to have coffee with his grandfather. Sounds like an interesting guy.
There are a million opportunities out there for young people who are willing to work outside of school, on talents or skills or connections - but not for those who expect to get experience handed to them with their grades.
It seems to me this is a generational thing. I live in Europe, coming from a not-so-rich family, and my 30 years old sister is exactly like that guy - if the job is so-called boring or "inferior", she would not even consider it...she prefers to keep sending resumes.
But on the other hand, I am not willing to criticize him too quickly. I think there is some truth to it - if you settle for the unsuitable job, it might be difficult to move from there. In other words, I am not a strong proponent of the "better any job than no job" mentality. Sometimes it is better to continue searching.
I didn't say "rich," I said "well-off." The middle class fear poverty more than the truly rich, in my experience.
You can quit a job at any point, and nothing bad happens. That's easy to explain, too. I quit my first real job after 3 months because it was too aggravating, and I got a better offer. Never posed me any problems, and meanwhile I paid off a lot of my debt.
People who make excuses will always find some new excuse to make.
The first thing I would do if I was looking for a job is... get a job. ANY job. I've got an engineering degree, and I'd start flipping burgers or hauling trash or whatever just to keep working. THEN I would start looking for a more suitable career job.
It's pretty simple. As a hiring manager looking at two potential employees, one who is "waiting for the right position" and another that is "trying to get by", I go with the latter every time. The first guy is definitely out of touch with reality, and the second guy is doing what it takes to get stuff done. I want him working for me.