You missed the big one:
If you can find reliable evidence across time, space and cultures that humans have complained about the same X, then complaining about X is part of human nature in, at least, cultures that leave durable evidence.
If you can find reliable evidence across time, space and cultures that humans have complained about the same X, then complaining about X is part of human nature in, at least, cultures that leave durable evidence.
You can pick almost any topic and find people unfairly whinging about it "across time, space, and cultures" because if there is something that's part of human nature then it's that some people will unfairly whinge about stuff. That on its own says exactly nothing about any specific argument that's presented: it's just vague heuristic pattern matching at best, and bad faith dismissal at worst.
I'm willing to bet that the majority of people have complained about being hungry, at some point in their lives. I would guess this practice began some time before the invention of language. Some things really are universal.
Regardless, novelty is a straw man. The implication that it's wrong to complain about something because it's not new is fallacious.
Yes, a person may compare younger people unfavorably to their own generation at the same age on some property they observe to be different when in fact it's only their perspective/memory that is different. But demonstrating that a complaint is not new is not evidence of that.