There are so many buzz words in this article I can't figure out the actual point the author is trying to make. Is it "how to spot someone who isn't homeless that's young and lives on their own and is therefore a yuppie" or "not being homeless or living with your parents is so uncool it's deserving of being called a yuppie, so down with the yuppies," or "the history of the yuppie?" All he seems to be trying to do is extend this buzzword to another buzzword that's so generic and can be applied to so many different people it means nothing.
It felt wordy to me. Like the author was afraid to repeat any word (besides yuppie) while striving for a formal sounding analysis. Very painful to read.
So are we now shifting yuppie to mean a young person with the audacity not to be broke? Most millennials are apparently lazy shits, and we need to rescusitate "yuppie" to help put a finger on why we hate the rest of them.
This takes the cake as the most arrogant, and yet vacuous, article I have ever read in my life. It's an academic sounding ramble with a flimsy premise and no resolution. gg nytimes.
Since when are Chuck Taylors hipster shoes? Those feel more like Hot Topic frequenting high schooler apparel than hipster. Cats out here are all about some expensive af boots.
