Assumption VS Conviction: ". In the past, young people <would've had> to embrace one path"

[Tony_M]

The example is mine.

Nowadays, parents tell their children, "You can return if it doesn't work out." When parents say strange things like that, the kids often turn out to be failures. In the past, young people would've had to embrace one path and become good at something. They wouldn't have had an option of coming back and starting again.

Are the constructions "would've had" and "wouldn't have had" understood as those that convey strong conviction or reasonable assumption?

 

[probus]

Both are possible. Without context it is impossible to be sure. Personally I'd use would and wouldn't if I meant usually.

 

[Tony_M]

Both are possible. Without context it is impossible to be sure. Personally I'd use would and wouldn't if I meant usually.

Do you mean "would've + v3" and "wouldn't have + v3"?

 

[probus]

I don't know what V3 means. Please clarify.

 

[5jj]

V3 is the third form, traditonally known as the past prticiple, of a verb.

 

[probus]

In that case, my answer is yes: I'd use would've to indicate that I usually, ordinarily or customarily would. So that's reasonable assumption rather than strong conviction.

 

[Tony_M]

In that case, my answer is yes: I'd use would've to indicate that I usually, ordinarily or customarily would. So that's reasonable assumption rather than strong conviction.

Okay, what the difference between just "would" and "would've"? Just "would+verb" is similar to "used to" and also used to indicate repeated actions in the past.