12 ms·

Millennials Are Poorer Than Their Parents, Investigation Finds

109 points by 6stringmerc 11y ago

CodeCube 11y ago
Next up, water is wet
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mcphage 11y ago
Of course they are. (1) College is mandatory for a lot more jobs, and college costs a lot more than it used to. (2) Houses cost a lot more than they used to, so more people are renting, thus locking them out of that route of asset building. (3) Jobs are harder to come by, and pay worse. (4) Maybe you consider it unnecessary, but there are a lot more monthly expenses (internet, cellular phone) than there used to be. So expenses are up, incomes are down, and wealth building is blocked off. I don't see how the conclusion would be anything else, with merely a moment's thought.
- kruhft 11y ago
  > (3) Jobs are harder to come by, and pay worse. Not unlike those of us that graduated right before the Dot Com Crash. Economies like this are not new.
- zyxley 11y ago
  I'd consider internet access a vital service at this point, given the sheer number of entry-level jobs that now only take applications online.
  - notduncansmith 11y ago
    Not necessarily home internet access. There are many places that offer free wifi, and AFAIK most public libraries in the US offer computer access to members.
    - zyxley 11y ago
      > places that offer free wifi With the expectation that you'll be buying things (and the implied threat of making you leave if you don't). Not suitable for job seeking. > most public libraries in the US offer computer access to members For a half hour or an hour at a time, yes. Not suitable for job seeking.
      - notduncansmith 11y ago
        > For a half hour or an hour at a time, yes. Not suitable for job seeking. I think that most people here would reject the notion that 30m-1h of computer time per day isn't a meaningful amount. If you've written your resume beforehand, you can easily transcribe it to the computer and upload it to a free Google Drive account in under 30m without being a fast typist. Most online job applications take <30m (source: gf who recently went on a job search). Getting one or two of those a day would be an excellent start with not that much effort invested. Alternatively, using that time to browse job aggregators could get you a lot of leads to follow up with in-person or over the phone. Furthermore, perhaps I live in a bubble but every public library I've been to in the last 5 years has also offered free wifi. I'm not saying this is a panacea, there are plenty of people without reliable access to their transportation or time to visit their local library, or can't leave the house for numerous other reasons. Just something to consider when making the widespread claim that everyone needs a home internet bill.
- RobertoG 11y ago
  Well, the USA GDP per capita (in constant dollars): in 1971 was 21,183 dollars. in 2014 was 46,405 dollars. Obviously, millennials have to be richer than their fathers or, at least, than their grandparents. source: https://www.google.es/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA:CHN&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:CHN&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.es/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&m...
  - Glyptodon 11y ago
    ...and one of the major complaints about things is that GDP growth has entirely decoupled from wage growth meaning that Top X% intervals each reap more most of the GDP gains. Not to mention that when most think of a "middle class job" they think of getting paid $60k to $120K which (outside of being decidedly upper middle class) means that there must be a huge chunk getting below $46k.
  - realusername 11y ago
    GDP per capita is only the average right ? Because nowadays with the income inequality, I would consider looking at medians to be more accurate. And millennials are not the only generation currently alive so even a median would not help here.
  - msandford 11y ago
    > Obviously, millennials have to be richer than their fathers or, at least, than their grandparents. Only if the GDP per capita is allocated uniformly. Who makes more, a 25 year old working at Starbucks or a 55 year old white collar worker?
    - RobertoG 11y ago
      Sure, but if you take all the workers in consideration, things don't look so good neither. "For most U.S. workers, real wages — that is, after inflation is taken into account — have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs." from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...
- bkjelden 11y ago
  I'd add to this that millennials are getting married later than any previous generation, and marriage allows one to share resources with a partner and therefore reduce expenses.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    And we're getting married later because 'adulthood' starts later. It used to be the case that you could support a family with a job you get at 18. If you did go to university, it was easy to pay for and generally not too hard to graduate in 4 years. A bachelor's degree was valuable. Today, good luck graduating in 4 years. Not to mention, a bachelor's degree is worth far less, graduate degrees or dual degrees are the thing now. By the time you go through university (5-8 years), work your (probably unpaid) internship, and get a job that gives you so much as a hope of a decent, middle class life, you're probably 25-28 years old. And unless you found your future spouse in university, then there's at least a year of dating, a year or two of engagement (since wedding venues are damn near impossible to find), and you're getting married at 30+. Anyhow of course that's above the average, plenty get married young, but then again, plenty are poor too. Poor people can get married younger by skipping the whole university thing, but then that does diminish their income potential for their lives. This is what I did, then went to university. Now I'm still 30+, albeit married, but no kids yet. Anyhow, the point is, marriage generally comes as a result of financial stability, not the other way around, though you're right that it does reduce expenses, if both spouses work. But because of cultural constructs, stability needs to exist before people couple up.
    - gregatragenet3 11y ago
      If degrees are worth far less, yet cost far more than in the past - why do people pursue them as if they are mandatory? Intertia? Stigmatization of not having a degree by society/government? I ask in all seriousness, as a large percentage of the most successful (and therefore best compensated) people I work with in tech don't have degrees.
      - Mikeb85 11y ago
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  > I don't see how the conclusion would be anything else, with merely a moment's thought. You'd be surprised how many people, even with all the actual data on the subject, refuse to accept that millenials are 'worse off', citing technology advances or whatever. That being said, we are just returning to the 'normal' state of things. The reduction in inequality after WWII and subsequent economic boom was the exception in human economic history, we're simply reverting to the mean. Thomas Piketty and others point out that inequality is increasing and while that's true, we've been there before. Since there's not a whole lot more to say, here's a great Piketty related article by Robert Solow (Nobel winning economist, known for the Solow model of economic growth): https://newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-piketty-reviewed https://newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-...
  - theseatoms 11y ago
    So you're sayin' we need a world war.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      That we send the Boomers to. /s Seriously though, during dinner last night my wife and I (and my parents in their late 50s/early 60s) watched the Fox News Town Hall with Sanders and Clinton. They could not fathom how worse off people our age (early 30s/late 20s) have it compared to them. Even after rattling off college costs, inability to secure a home, stagnant wages, poor job prospects, it was incredulous to them. "It can't possibly be that bad!" Is it an education issue? Perhaps. I think it'll get fixed the hard way though: one obituary at a time. Until then, we'll need a whole lot more social activism out there.
    - Mikeb85 11y ago
      I upvoted you because I get the humour. We need to reverse the trend. Otherwise, eventually, it will lead to violence, as many observers have predicted over the years (and it did lead to revolutions in many countries years ago, and even the Arab spring more recently). Ways to do it: - Stop restricting competition through laws that limit entry into various sectors (there's an absurd amount of laws which serve no use other than protecting big business interests) - Heavy taxes on rent-seeking. There's an absurd amount of rent seeking in our economy, especially when it comes to commercial real estate in urban areas, patents, and many other behaviours (the tab above can be considered 'rent-seeking' since it introduces inefficiencies that favour incumbents) - Estate taxes. While we love antidotes of the middle-class entrepreneur becoming a billionaire, it's the exception to the rule. While there is a lot of churn and mobility amongst the billionaire class, when you take the top 1% as a whole, they, as a group, are increasing their lead over the rest of society. Yes someone who has $50 million in the family can turn it into a billion. And someone with a billion can lose enough to go back to being a multi-millionaire. But the upper classes in general, due to their large real estate holdings and ability to seek rents, generally stay rich. If one family falls, those assets are likely incorporated into another family. Dynastic wealth doesn't always last, but the 1% generally stays the 1%, due to various dynamics. - Real progressive taxation. While the lower classes pay lower percentages of income tax, it's stacked against them because their current rates still make up a larger percentage of their cost of living allowances. Not to mention, upper classes have more investment vehicles and tax avoidance vehicles at their disposal. Anyhow, there's much more to say about it, but what it comes down to is, unless we stop the trend, nothing's going to get better, no matter how much we wish it.
- hacknat 11y ago
  This is conventional wisdom, but I don't think it holds as much muster as you think. Point #4 is a red herring as they add considerable wealth and convenience to the lives of the people that consume the services listed. Point 1 is a consequence of point 3 which is a result of the outsourcing/automation of labor. Well that's not coming back, because automation isn't going anywhere. We have to be a service-sector economy for the next few decades (until that starts to get automated too). People have bought into College, because that seems like the path of least resistance to cushy white-collar service-sector jobs. This is more or less true, though I have met more hiring managers than less that care way more about acquired skill than degrees. Whatever, I'll grant #1 even though I think it doesn't have to be that way. #2 is the one point on your list that is the most salient and controllable issue pertinent to the generation wealth gap. Land is a fixed resource, but housing doesn't have to be, but baby boomers show up to local elections and vote their interests to artificially tie their ownership of land to housing. Our parents paid waaaay less for housing than we do, and yet we put up with elected officials who maintain the status quo of strict zoning policy that results in over-priced, artificially scarce housing stock. Who can blame them? They leveraged themselves into a stupid investment, and the only reason that it pays off is because they vote for it to continue to pay. I could probably afford a house in a mid-sized American city, but I refuse to purchase one. I refuse to reward the stupidity of the housing market with my dollars. I'd rather a greedy real estate developer have my money and lobby for the local government for density than award some dumb homeowner.
- ross-life 11y ago
  > I don't see how the conclusion would be anything else, with merely a moment's thought. Well it depends what side you are on! :) Anecdotally, in the UK many older people will claim (A) Young people spend frivolously (B) Young people don't work hard enough or "as hard as they did" and/or (C) Their success was "their success". Everything about economies, markets, education, housing, expectations, opportunities and the rest is wishy-washed away with "Well if they worked harder (like I did), those would work out for them".
  - icelancer 11y ago
    >Anecdotally, in the UK many older people will claim (A) Young people spend frivolously (B) Young people don't work hard enough or "as hard as they did" and/or (C) Their success was "their success". People who claim millenials don't work hard and that they spend frivolously are probably right. The issue, of course, is that it's not an exclusive truth: Millenials are worse off than the generation previous AND they work less hard. The same problem exists in millenials, obviously. They think the world is out to get them, and they are right. But they also don't work hard enough. In short, everyone contributes to this downwards spiral.
    - dcole2929 11y ago
      Except the data doesn't agree with you. According to most studies millenials work as hard or harder than previous generations, mostly because they don't have a choice
      - brianleb 11y ago
        Can you cite some of these studies? I am interested in how they quantify work (and just seeing the conclusions they come to and how they got there).
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      This is a specialized industrial economy. Telling people to "work harder" is the conceptual equivalent to telling them to shut off the tractors and plow the field by hand. Gen X and Millenials do not work as hard as Boomers. They work much, much smarter. Worker productivity is higher than it has ever been. Boomers look at younger generations and see "Ah, look at this! All they do is press a button, and the machine does all the work, yet still they complain." The Boomers conveniently ignore the part where the button was programmed by Gen X and Millennial engineers, and the only reason there is even anyone around to push the button is because no one will ever get paid a living wage for not pushing a button, as long as "work hard" Boomers are in power. But as political control lags behind workforce composition, the people who grew up believing that success is the result of hard work are now commanding the economy. And they are responsible for the creation of the "bullshit job", wherein unnecessary work is invented out of thin air, just so that workers will continue to have the opportunity to show how hard they can work. Millennials do not slack off at these jobs because they are bad workers. They do it because they are smart enough to know that the work is meaningless, and it does not matter one whit whether it is done poorly, or not at all. The only reason they work at all is because they need money to survive. We no longer need all hands on deck. It's time to stop feeling guilty or judgmental about enjoying leisure time before age 65. And it's time to distribute the productivity dividend to the people who have been doing the work all these years. It simply does not matter that Millennials do not work hard. We have so many machines now that none of them really need to. So if any of them do work harder, that just means less actual work is available to others of their generation, or worse for them, to Gen X workers (who have been somewhat less harshly shut out from economic prosperity, but shut out all the same). Boomers will be in for a rude awakening when they are all sitting in their retirement party castles and no young employees are ever around to serve them their Mai-Tais promptly at 5 o'clock. The younger generations will be trading what little they have with each other until the old people die off and release their stranglehold on the economy.
- untog 11y ago
  > I don't see how the conclusion would be anything else But for many (especially Boomers) the conclusion is something else, because that's what they want it to be. So it's very worthwhile hammering the point home with exhaustive data. Though publishing to Vice is preaching to the choir, of course...
- jackcosgrove 11y ago
  In December 1975 the Case-Shiller US National Home Price Index was at 26.45. In December 2015 it was at 175.65. Case-Shiller prices are nominal. So nominally, home prices have risen 564% in 40 years. (http://us.spindices.com/indices/real-estate/sp-case-shiller-us-national-home-price-index http://us.spindices.com/indices/real-estate/sp-case-shiller-...) In 1974, median real household income for those aged 25-34 was about $54,000 per year. In 2014, it was roughly the same. (http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Incomes-by-Age-Brackets http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-...) Using a BLS inflation calculator, we can calculate the 1974 nominal median income for those aged 25-34 as $11,245. (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm) As a sanity check, I checked the Census for the median household income in 1974 and it was $12,840, which makes sense. (http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-101.pdf http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-101.pdf) So in 1975, the Case-Shiller index to young household median nominal income ratio was 0.00235. In 2015, it was 0.00325. This means that in 40 years, the amount of money young households must pay for buying a house has risen by 38%.
  - LaMarseillaise 11y ago
    Does this index account for the increase in home size since 1975? Homes are nearly twice as large now.
    - jackcosgrove 11y ago
      It does not adjust for square footage, so yes that's a good point.
  - ianferrel 11y ago
    The 30-year mortgage interest rate in 1975 was 8+%. These days it's less than 4%. The value of the house has increased significantly, but has the value of the monthly payment?
    - jackcosgrove 11y ago
      For first time buyers the down payment is a bigger hurdle than the monthly payment. Higher purchase prices make this hurdle even higher, even if monthly payments as a proportion of income are the same, as I suspect they are.
- moheeb 11y ago
  You kind of hint at this with points 2 & 3, but I think you could add: (5) There are way more people than there used to be
- leeleelee 11y ago
  What you say is true. However, I think a lot of millenials draw incorrect conclusions like assuming this is "unfair!" Perhaps things are just back to normal now? Who's to say what college and housing should cost? Who's to say how much jobs should pay? I always preach about self empowerment. Too many millenials whine, cry, point their fingers, share memes on facebook, get angry, and blame the world around them for how "unfair" the times are. I'm within the millenial age bracket. But I focus on the things I can control, like how much I spend. How much I save. How hard I work. And never ever ever does it creep into my mind that things are unfair. I never blame the rest of the world for my own hardships. Keep focusing on what you need to do, meaning the things you can actually control in your life, and your standard of living will improve. Not over night. We still live in a great country where anybody, in any circumstances, can overcome any struggle at all with enough hard work and persistence. This is the message we should be sending to millenials, not victimizing them.
  - dismal2 11y ago
    Yeah, just take a good, long, hard pull on those bootstraps and everything will be fine. Social change has to happen sometimes, and sometimes there is a reason to be outraged.
- dsmithatx 11y ago
  (1) College is mandatory for a lot more jobs, and college costs a lot more than it used to. When I was young (1980s) all jobs that paid a good salary required college. I found (1990s+) especially in tech that this wasn't true anymore. I can easily earn around 6 figures working almost anywhere in tech and I never got a degree. (3) Jobs are harder to come by, and pay worse. I find the opposite of this as well. Getting a job for me 20 years ago meant going door to door, submitting resumes, filing out applications or using a recruiter. 10 years ago the dot-com bubble burst and there were no jobs. Today I've been happily employed at a job and 6 months later I get several job offers every single day. Especially in Tech there are more jobs than there are qualified people to fill them according to my recruiter. Also my last job search was a couple hours spent online and then the phone calls and emails never seem to stop pouring in. Jobless claims soared in 2008 and now they are at 1970s levels. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/jobless-claims http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/jobless-claims
  - Jyaif 11y ago
    Do you think that your experience is representative?
s_kilk 11y ago
This is a blogspam wrapper for the original Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/07/revealed-30-year-economic-betrayal-dragging-down-generation-y-income http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/07/revealed-30-yea...
- s_dev 11y ago
  It's in a wrapper to avoid being flagged as a repost: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11238360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11238360
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    Didn't know it was a repost, I missed that one. Not sure I'm really too keen on the headline used on that, seems needlessly combative.
    - beeboop 11y ago
      As a generation Y person myself, I feel like older generations are combative against newer generations. Whether it was willful neglect or negligence, I am not sure, but the reality is that I am getting a pretty raw deal when compared to my parents and grandparents. Considering the societal or moral obligations parents have (or should have) to their children, I wouldn't say "betrayal" is too far off the mark. Apparently the sense of obligation from an older generation to a newer one doesn't extend very well when viewed in aggregate.
      - 6stringmerc 11y ago
        Oh I can agree that there's some palpable friction at play. I'm not sure it was betrayal as much as pure, unadulterated selfishness. Generationally speaking, even the parents (Baby Boomers) and their parents (Greatest Generation) are currently in pretty bad shape as well - all except for the X% who were doing the fleecing rather than getting taken along for the ride. It's not really hyperbole to look at the trillions in outstanding debt (not just Federal - have a look at the Muni market) and conclude that the Generation Y and Z will essentially be debt slaves based on decisions of the deceased. It's pretty disturbing on a fundamental level.
MadManE 11y ago
I find this to be more than a little disingenuous. While it is true that millennials are poorer, the reasoning isn't so cut-and-dried. I fully place the blame on the attitude of entitlement. There is the expectation that everything will be handed to anyone who just follows the pre-set path of college-->office job-->retirement, without the acknowledgement of all the behind-the-scenes effort that it takes. College is more expensive, but it's not impossible. Some non-college careers are now more profitable because of this also. No matter what some people say, just showing up is not going to cut it. You need to do your job well and advocate for yourself to get raises/promotions/opportunities. This is not to say that it's easy to get ahead. But making the "right" choices and having a little temporary discomfort or making the "wrong" choices and committing to a life of debt is pretty standard throughout history. We just have a much larger group of people with access to mass marketing tools than before, so we get to hear about it more often.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  And to whom would you lay the blame of creating the atmosphere of entitlement? Is it a construct that Millenials decided to work up through their Elementary, Junior, and High School educations? It doesn't seem rational to point out 'entitlement' without context as to where such a trend came from. Would you agree the Baby Boomer "Me Generation" set up the stage for what we're seeing today?
  - MadManE 11y ago
    But who set the stage for the Baby Boomers? Do we blame the previous generation for that? At some point, you need to take responsibility for your own actions. Even if the situation that you're in isn't your fault, it IS up to you what you do to get out of it.
    - Eric_WVGG 11y ago
      “Homes and education cost more than they used to” ‘You’re not working hard enough’ “There are no jobs” ‘You’re not looking hard enough’ “Okay I moved to shitsville to look for a working-class job, industry dried up and the unions are gone” ‘…’ JFC
gedy 11y ago
I know there's a myriad of causes, but friends - avoid debt, even if your peers, parents, media, whatever encourage you that it's "okay" for college, nice house, etc. It just boggles me that friends would borrow huge tuition and dorm costs for private college out of state, to get something like a Communications Degree with low income prospects. Even if they are passionate about the subject, they could've easily gotten it cheaper at a local state school and living at home. Or, taken their first few years at community college, etc. Willingness to borrow is at least one of the factors for rising costs. Debt is slavery and steals from your future.
- superuser2 11y ago
  >nice house Apartment leases are debt too - you are obligated to pay someone a fixed amount of money on a recurring basis for a fixed term. I suppose in a month-to-month lease you have the "option" of becoming homeless.
  - techsupporter 11y ago
    OP said "nice house," not "any house." One of the trends I see in my millenial-GenX cohorts is the buying of expensive consumer goods the moment a sizable salary is conferred. Yes, it's a relief to finally have a job that pays enough to have money left at the end of the month. However, loading up the monthly expenses with a brand new (often oversized) vehicle and a house purchased for 5x annual salary is unwise. It happens quite often. Another thing to consider is that buying reduces mobility. If you buy in the "wrong" spot, you can be stuck there while opportunities in other areas go unfilled by you. If the economy is as truly broken as a lot of people my age think it is, why buy (or buy expensively) when there's a good chance that in two years better pay or a more balanced job will be found elsewhere?
    - superuser2 11y ago
      Consider that if those millennials are buying houses for 5x salary, then they must have been doing something right to save ~1x salary for a down payment. (Unless people are somehow getting mortgages without down payments these days?) I agree that buying reduces mobility - and I plan on renting for the foreseeable future. What I take issue with is the claim that it's possible or desirable for to avoid debt at all costs. Renting is not automatically a better financial decision than mortgaging, and for people who don't need the mobility it can be substantially worse. Consider that the worst case scenario for ownership (your home depreciates to $0) is still better than the best case scenario for renting (your rent stays flat) because a renter wouldn't have an asset to sell anyway, but the owner gets to continue living there without paying for it.
jessaustin 11y ago
Hasn't this also been true for "Generation X"? As if the stupid name weren't bad enough...
- yarrel 11y ago
  Yes, but Boomers only see Millenials.
- MrZongle2 11y ago
  Oddly enough, in the majority of these articles (and related discussions), I don't see much mention of Gen X. It's like nobody was born between the late 60s and early 80s.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    They are neither up-and-coming struggling young people, nor retiring, in-power older people. So they don't matter as much regarding this for now... in 10-15 years though, when baby boomers will be gone...
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      This might be a bit optimistic. Boomers have been arriving early and overstaying their welcome in any and every situation for the entirety of their existence. With our luck, the great biotech transition will take place just in time for us to be stuck with them forever.
    - MrZongle2 11y ago
      "in 10-15 years though, when baby boomers will be gone..." ...then we'll be blamed for everything and we'll still hear about the Millennials.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    If your essential argument is that Millennials have not succeeded in life because they have not worked hard enough, the very last thing you want to do is call attention to Gen X, who has worked hard for decades already, and is still living paycheck to paycheck.
6stringmerc 11y ago
Other than my Dad giving me the strong advice from personal experience that "Making a living as a musician is not a pleasant or steady lifestyle choice" the one thing I've been glad to have heard long ago was "You'll probably never have the same standard of living as we've had in this home." Little did he know that a few years after that, and once I was on my own two feet, his employer of 30+ years would dump his pension on the US taxpayers and gut his benefits. Even he wasn't able to achieve the retirement peace of mind he worked for all those years. In hindisight, his statement plus what I witnessed happen doesn't make me feel like I'm missing out an 'entitlement' but rather a general suspiciousness the working world is rigged.
- aantix 11y ago
  Who did he work for?
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    A US commercial airline. Several have done the same kind of maneuver so I feel it's at least somewhat obfuscated the particular one.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
programminggeek 11y ago
Employee pay is stagnant, prices for all things are rising, and personal debt for the average person is largely out of control. We are all wage slaves now.
femto113 11y ago
This will only get worse, since millennials will also be saddled with paying their parent's generation's pensions. Inflation is the obvious answer, I just wonder if it will come without a major upheaval first.
vannevar 11y ago
The study seems to be looking at the relative distribution of wealth, in which case the conclusion is just another way of saying that more and more income is being captured by the wealthy. Older people in any generation are going to tend to be in the higher percentiles of wealth, so a general trend in wealth distribution from the poor to the rich will tend to favor them and disfavor the young. No need for rationalizing based on millenials' character, or even their micro-economics. The simple mathematical fact is that capitalism, absent some correctional force like progressive taxation, trends inevitably toward greater wealth and income disparity between rich and poor. It's built into the system; not a bug, but a feature.
PostThisTooFast 11y ago
Ugh, ENOUGH WITH THE IDIOTIC LABELS. What are we going to call the hordes of people born in the next 900+ years, who are born during no particular event or millennial rollover? Use numbers. Period. Something Android could learn, by the way. Then we don't have the kind of "generation creep" we've seen with the baby boomers, who went from being babies born right after WWII to being 20 years of babies.
bobby_9x 11y ago
Many are poor due to their own choices. I know many millennials that spend way too much on the newest gadgets/cell phones (I spend $30/month and get a cheap phone as opposed to the hundreds of dollars many pay on a plan and a new phone). Jobs are also an issue. Millennials have more education than their parents, but many choose not to use it. I know at least 5 millennials that either quit a well-paying job or just refuse to work at any company that isn’t ”changing the world”. I attribute it to entitlement. They feel they are owed a satisfying and well-paying job, when in reality, you need to earn it over many years. More proof of this is in their voting habits. Sanders is tje entitlement president and is supported, by far, by millennials.
godgod 11y ago
The American dream has been stolen by our globalist overlords. The good thing is, people are waking up to what it means to be a 21st century slave.
tunichtgut 11y ago
What i realised is, that the millennial generation (im gen y) has spawned a yolo (you only live once) or better to say, yoln (you only live now) attitude. They dont have much hope in their future, so they tend to live now. Not tomorrow. They dont safe money, they spend money, they max out their borrowing, they max out consumption. From their perspective, its perfectly logic to do so. And even some of my old friends, the kids from the 80s, have started to live with the "yoln" live style.

109 points by 6stringmerc 11y ago

CodeCube 11y ago

Next up, water is wet

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mcphage 11y ago

Of course they are. (1) College is mandatory for a lot more jobs, and college costs a lot more than it used to. (2) Houses cost a lot more than they used to, so more people are renting, thus locking them out of that route of asset building. (3) Jobs are harder to come by, and pay worse. (4) Maybe you consider it unnecessary, but there are a lot more monthly expenses (internet, cellular phone) than there used to be. So expenses are up, incomes are down, and wealth building is blocked off. I don't see how the conclusion would be anything else, with merely a moment's thought.

kruhft 11y ago
> (3) Jobs are harder to come by, and pay worse. Not unlike those of us that graduated right before the Dot Com Crash. Economies like this are not new.
zyxley 11y ago
I'd consider internet access a vital service at this point, given the sheer number of entry-level jobs that now only take applications online.
- notduncansmith 11y ago
  Not necessarily home internet access. There are many places that offer free wifi, and AFAIK most public libraries in the US offer computer access to members.
  - zyxley 11y ago
    > places that offer free wifi With the expectation that you'll be buying things (and the implied threat of making you leave if you don't). Not suitable for job seeking. > most public libraries in the US offer computer access to members For a half hour or an hour at a time, yes. Not suitable for job seeking.
    - notduncansmith 11y ago
      > For a half hour or an hour at a time, yes. Not suitable for job seeking. I think that most people here would reject the notion that 30m-1h of computer time per day isn't a meaningful amount. If you've written your resume beforehand, you can easily transcribe it to the computer and upload it to a free Google Drive account in under 30m without being a fast typist. Most online job applications take <30m (source: gf who recently went on a job search). Getting one or two of those a day would be an excellent start with not that much effort invested. Alternatively, using that time to browse job aggregators could get you a lot of leads to follow up with in-person or over the phone. Furthermore, perhaps I live in a bubble but every public library I've been to in the last 5 years has also offered free wifi. I'm not saying this is a panacea, there are plenty of people without reliable access to their transportation or time to visit their local library, or can't leave the house for numerous other reasons. Just something to consider when making the widespread claim that everyone needs a home internet bill.
RobertoG 11y ago
Well, the USA GDP per capita (in constant dollars): in 1971 was 21,183 dollars. in 2014 was 46,405 dollars. Obviously, millennials have to be richer than their fathers or, at least, than their grandparents. source: https://www.google.es/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA:CHN&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:CHN&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.es/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&m...
- Glyptodon 11y ago
  ...and one of the major complaints about things is that GDP growth has entirely decoupled from wage growth meaning that Top X% intervals each reap more most of the GDP gains. Not to mention that when most think of a "middle class job" they think of getting paid $60k to $120K which (outside of being decidedly upper middle class) means that there must be a huge chunk getting below $46k.
- realusername 11y ago
  GDP per capita is only the average right ? Because nowadays with the income inequality, I would consider looking at medians to be more accurate. And millennials are not the only generation currently alive so even a median would not help here.
- msandford 11y ago
  > Obviously, millennials have to be richer than their fathers or, at least, than their grandparents. Only if the GDP per capita is allocated uniformly. Who makes more, a 25 year old working at Starbucks or a 55 year old white collar worker?
  - RobertoG 11y ago
    Sure, but if you take all the workers in consideration, things don't look so good neither. "For most U.S. workers, real wages — that is, after inflation is taken into account — have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs." from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...
bkjelden 11y ago
I'd add to this that millennials are getting married later than any previous generation, and marriage allows one to share resources with a partner and therefore reduce expenses.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  And we're getting married later because 'adulthood' starts later. It used to be the case that you could support a family with a job you get at 18. If you did go to university, it was easy to pay for and generally not too hard to graduate in 4 years. A bachelor's degree was valuable. Today, good luck graduating in 4 years. Not to mention, a bachelor's degree is worth far less, graduate degrees or dual degrees are the thing now. By the time you go through university (5-8 years), work your (probably unpaid) internship, and get a job that gives you so much as a hope of a decent, middle class life, you're probably 25-28 years old. And unless you found your future spouse in university, then there's at least a year of dating, a year or two of engagement (since wedding venues are damn near impossible to find), and you're getting married at 30+. Anyhow of course that's above the average, plenty get married young, but then again, plenty are poor too. Poor people can get married younger by skipping the whole university thing, but then that does diminish their income potential for their lives. This is what I did, then went to university. Now I'm still 30+, albeit married, but no kids yet. Anyhow, the point is, marriage generally comes as a result of financial stability, not the other way around, though you're right that it does reduce expenses, if both spouses work. But because of cultural constructs, stability needs to exist before people couple up.
  - gregatragenet3 11y ago
    If degrees are worth far less, yet cost far more than in the past - why do people pursue them as if they are mandatory? Intertia? Stigmatization of not having a degree by society/government? I ask in all seriousness, as a large percentage of the most successful (and therefore best compensated) people I work with in tech don't have degrees.
    - Mikeb85 11y ago
Mikeb85 11y ago
> I don't see how the conclusion would be anything else, with merely a moment's thought. You'd be surprised how many people, even with all the actual data on the subject, refuse to accept that millenials are 'worse off', citing technology advances or whatever. That being said, we are just returning to the 'normal' state of things. The reduction in inequality after WWII and subsequent economic boom was the exception in human economic history, we're simply reverting to the mean. Thomas Piketty and others point out that inequality is increasing and while that's true, we've been there before. Since there's not a whole lot more to say, here's a great Piketty related article by Robert Solow (Nobel winning economist, known for the Solow model of economic growth): https://newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-piketty-reviewed https://newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-...
- theseatoms 11y ago
  So you're sayin' we need a world war.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    That we send the Boomers to. /s Seriously though, during dinner last night my wife and I (and my parents in their late 50s/early 60s) watched the Fox News Town Hall with Sanders and Clinton. They could not fathom how worse off people our age (early 30s/late 20s) have it compared to them. Even after rattling off college costs, inability to secure a home, stagnant wages, poor job prospects, it was incredulous to them. "It can't possibly be that bad!" Is it an education issue? Perhaps. I think it'll get fixed the hard way though: one obituary at a time. Until then, we'll need a whole lot more social activism out there.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    I upvoted you because I get the humour. We need to reverse the trend. Otherwise, eventually, it will lead to violence, as many observers have predicted over the years (and it did lead to revolutions in many countries years ago, and even the Arab spring more recently). Ways to do it: - Stop restricting competition through laws that limit entry into various sectors (there's an absurd amount of laws which serve no use other than protecting big business interests) - Heavy taxes on rent-seeking. There's an absurd amount of rent seeking in our economy, especially when it comes to commercial real estate in urban areas, patents, and many other behaviours (the tab above can be considered 'rent-seeking' since it introduces inefficiencies that favour incumbents) - Estate taxes. While we love antidotes of the middle-class entrepreneur becoming a billionaire, it's the exception to the rule. While there is a lot of churn and mobility amongst the billionaire class, when you take the top 1% as a whole, they, as a group, are increasing their lead over the rest of society. Yes someone who has $50 million in the family can turn it into a billion. And someone with a billion can lose enough to go back to being a multi-millionaire. But the upper classes in general, due to their large real estate holdings and ability to seek rents, generally stay rich. If one family falls, those assets are likely incorporated into another family. Dynastic wealth doesn't always last, but the 1% generally stays the 1%, due to various dynamics. - Real progressive taxation. While the lower classes pay lower percentages of income tax, it's stacked against them because their current rates still make up a larger percentage of their cost of living allowances. Not to mention, upper classes have more investment vehicles and tax avoidance vehicles at their disposal. Anyhow, there's much more to say about it, but what it comes down to is, unless we stop the trend, nothing's going to get better, no matter how much we wish it.
hacknat 11y ago
This is conventional wisdom, but I don't think it holds as much muster as you think. Point #4 is a red herring as they add considerable wealth and convenience to the lives of the people that consume the services listed. Point 1 is a consequence of point 3 which is a result of the outsourcing/automation of labor. Well that's not coming back, because automation isn't going anywhere. We have to be a service-sector economy for the next few decades (until that starts to get automated too). People have bought into College, because that seems like the path of least resistance to cushy white-collar service-sector jobs. This is more or less true, though I have met more hiring managers than less that care way more about acquired skill than degrees. Whatever, I'll grant #1 even though I think it doesn't have to be that way. #2 is the one point on your list that is the most salient and controllable issue pertinent to the generation wealth gap. Land is a fixed resource, but housing doesn't have to be, but baby boomers show up to local elections and vote their interests to artificially tie their ownership of land to housing. Our parents paid waaaay less for housing than we do, and yet we put up with elected officials who maintain the status quo of strict zoning policy that results in over-priced, artificially scarce housing stock. Who can blame them? They leveraged themselves into a stupid investment, and the only reason that it pays off is because they vote for it to continue to pay. I could probably afford a house in a mid-sized American city, but I refuse to purchase one. I refuse to reward the stupidity of the housing market with my dollars. I'd rather a greedy real estate developer have my money and lobby for the local government for density than award some dumb homeowner.
ross-life 11y ago
> I don't see how the conclusion would be anything else, with merely a moment's thought. Well it depends what side you are on! :) Anecdotally, in the UK many older people will claim (A) Young people spend frivolously (B) Young people don't work hard enough or "as hard as they did" and/or (C) Their success was "their success". Everything about economies, markets, education, housing, expectations, opportunities and the rest is wishy-washed away with "Well if they worked harder (like I did), those would work out for them".
- icelancer 11y ago
  >Anecdotally, in the UK many older people will claim (A) Young people spend frivolously (B) Young people don't work hard enough or "as hard as they did" and/or (C) Their success was "their success". People who claim millenials don't work hard and that they spend frivolously are probably right. The issue, of course, is that it's not an exclusive truth: Millenials are worse off than the generation previous AND they work less hard. The same problem exists in millenials, obviously. They think the world is out to get them, and they are right. But they also don't work hard enough. In short, everyone contributes to this downwards spiral.
  - dcole2929 11y ago
    Except the data doesn't agree with you. According to most studies millenials work as hard or harder than previous generations, mostly because they don't have a choice
    - brianleb 11y ago
      Can you cite some of these studies? I am interested in how they quantify work (and just seeing the conclusions they come to and how they got there).
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    This is a specialized industrial economy. Telling people to "work harder" is the conceptual equivalent to telling them to shut off the tractors and plow the field by hand. Gen X and Millenials do not work as hard as Boomers. They work much, much smarter. Worker productivity is higher than it has ever been. Boomers look at younger generations and see "Ah, look at this! All they do is press a button, and the machine does all the work, yet still they complain." The Boomers conveniently ignore the part where the button was programmed by Gen X and Millennial engineers, and the only reason there is even anyone around to push the button is because no one will ever get paid a living wage for not pushing a button, as long as "work hard" Boomers are in power. But as political control lags behind workforce composition, the people who grew up believing that success is the result of hard work are now commanding the economy. And they are responsible for the creation of the "bullshit job", wherein unnecessary work is invented out of thin air, just so that workers will continue to have the opportunity to show how hard they can work. Millennials do not slack off at these jobs because they are bad workers. They do it because they are smart enough to know that the work is meaningless, and it does not matter one whit whether it is done poorly, or not at all. The only reason they work at all is because they need money to survive. We no longer need all hands on deck. It's time to stop feeling guilty or judgmental about enjoying leisure time before age 65. And it's time to distribute the productivity dividend to the people who have been doing the work all these years. It simply does not matter that Millennials do not work hard. We have so many machines now that none of them really need to. So if any of them do work harder, that just means less actual work is available to others of their generation, or worse for them, to Gen X workers (who have been somewhat less harshly shut out from economic prosperity, but shut out all the same). Boomers will be in for a rude awakening when they are all sitting in their retirement party castles and no young employees are ever around to serve them their Mai-Tais promptly at 5 o'clock. The younger generations will be trading what little they have with each other until the old people die off and release their stranglehold on the economy.
untog 11y ago
> I don't see how the conclusion would be anything else But for many (especially Boomers) the conclusion is something else, because that's what they want it to be. So it's very worthwhile hammering the point home with exhaustive data. Though publishing to Vice is preaching to the choir, of course...
jackcosgrove 11y ago
In December 1975 the Case-Shiller US National Home Price Index was at 26.45. In December 2015 it was at 175.65. Case-Shiller prices are nominal. So nominally, home prices have risen 564% in 40 years. (http://us.spindices.com/indices/real-estate/sp-case-shiller-us-national-home-price-index http://us.spindices.com/indices/real-estate/sp-case-shiller-...) In 1974, median real household income for those aged 25-34 was about $54,000 per year. In 2014, it was roughly the same. (http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Incomes-by-Age-Brackets http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-...) Using a BLS inflation calculator, we can calculate the 1974 nominal median income for those aged 25-34 as $11,245. (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm) As a sanity check, I checked the Census for the median household income in 1974 and it was $12,840, which makes sense. (http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-101.pdf http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-101.pdf) So in 1975, the Case-Shiller index to young household median nominal income ratio was 0.00235. In 2015, it was 0.00325. This means that in 40 years, the amount of money young households must pay for buying a house has risen by 38%.
- LaMarseillaise 11y ago
  Does this index account for the increase in home size since 1975? Homes are nearly twice as large now.
  - jackcosgrove 11y ago
    It does not adjust for square footage, so yes that's a good point.
- ianferrel 11y ago
  The 30-year mortgage interest rate in 1975 was 8+%. These days it's less than 4%. The value of the house has increased significantly, but has the value of the monthly payment?
  - jackcosgrove 11y ago
    For first time buyers the down payment is a bigger hurdle than the monthly payment. Higher purchase prices make this hurdle even higher, even if monthly payments as a proportion of income are the same, as I suspect they are.
moheeb 11y ago
You kind of hint at this with points 2 & 3, but I think you could add: (5) There are way more people than there used to be
leeleelee 11y ago
What you say is true. However, I think a lot of millenials draw incorrect conclusions like assuming this is "unfair!" Perhaps things are just back to normal now? Who's to say what college and housing should cost? Who's to say how much jobs should pay? I always preach about self empowerment. Too many millenials whine, cry, point their fingers, share memes on facebook, get angry, and blame the world around them for how "unfair" the times are. I'm within the millenial age bracket. But I focus on the things I can control, like how much I spend. How much I save. How hard I work. And never ever ever does it creep into my mind that things are unfair. I never blame the rest of the world for my own hardships. Keep focusing on what you need to do, meaning the things you can actually control in your life, and your standard of living will improve. Not over night. We still live in a great country where anybody, in any circumstances, can overcome any struggle at all with enough hard work and persistence. This is the message we should be sending to millenials, not victimizing them.
- dismal2 11y ago
  Yeah, just take a good, long, hard pull on those bootstraps and everything will be fine. Social change has to happen sometimes, and sometimes there is a reason to be outraged.
dsmithatx 11y ago
(1) College is mandatory for a lot more jobs, and college costs a lot more than it used to. When I was young (1980s) all jobs that paid a good salary required college. I found (1990s+) especially in tech that this wasn't true anymore. I can easily earn around 6 figures working almost anywhere in tech and I never got a degree. (3) Jobs are harder to come by, and pay worse. I find the opposite of this as well. Getting a job for me 20 years ago meant going door to door, submitting resumes, filing out applications or using a recruiter. 10 years ago the dot-com bubble burst and there were no jobs. Today I've been happily employed at a job and 6 months later I get several job offers every single day. Especially in Tech there are more jobs than there are qualified people to fill them according to my recruiter. Also my last job search was a couple hours spent online and then the phone calls and emails never seem to stop pouring in. Jobless claims soared in 2008 and now they are at 1970s levels. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/jobless-claims http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/jobless-claims
- Jyaif 11y ago
  Do you think that your experience is representative?

s_kilk 11y ago

This is a blogspam wrapper for the original Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/07/revealed-30-year-economic-betrayal-dragging-down-generation-y-income http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/07/revealed-30-yea...

s_dev 11y ago
It's in a wrapper to avoid being flagged as a repost: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11238360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11238360
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Didn't know it was a repost, I missed that one. Not sure I'm really too keen on the headline used on that, seems needlessly combative.
  - beeboop 11y ago
    As a generation Y person myself, I feel like older generations are combative against newer generations. Whether it was willful neglect or negligence, I am not sure, but the reality is that I am getting a pretty raw deal when compared to my parents and grandparents. Considering the societal or moral obligations parents have (or should have) to their children, I wouldn't say "betrayal" is too far off the mark. Apparently the sense of obligation from an older generation to a newer one doesn't extend very well when viewed in aggregate.
    - 6stringmerc 11y ago
      Oh I can agree that there's some palpable friction at play. I'm not sure it was betrayal as much as pure, unadulterated selfishness. Generationally speaking, even the parents (Baby Boomers) and their parents (Greatest Generation) are currently in pretty bad shape as well - all except for the X% who were doing the fleecing rather than getting taken along for the ride. It's not really hyperbole to look at the trillions in outstanding debt (not just Federal - have a look at the Muni market) and conclude that the Generation Y and Z will essentially be debt slaves based on decisions of the deceased. It's pretty disturbing on a fundamental level.

MadManE 11y ago

I find this to be more than a little disingenuous. While it is true that millennials are poorer, the reasoning isn't so cut-and-dried. I fully place the blame on the attitude of entitlement. There is the expectation that everything will be handed to anyone who just follows the pre-set path of college-->office job-->retirement, without the acknowledgement of all the behind-the-scenes effort that it takes. College is more expensive, but it's not impossible. Some non-college careers are now more profitable because of this also. No matter what some people say, just showing up is not going to cut it. You need to do your job well and advocate for yourself to get raises/promotions/opportunities. This is not to say that it's easy to get ahead. But making the "right" choices and having a little temporary discomfort or making the "wrong" choices and committing to a life of debt is pretty standard throughout history. We just have a much larger group of people with access to mass marketing tools than before, so we get to hear about it more often.

6stringmerc 11y ago
And to whom would you lay the blame of creating the atmosphere of entitlement? Is it a construct that Millenials decided to work up through their Elementary, Junior, and High School educations? It doesn't seem rational to point out 'entitlement' without context as to where such a trend came from. Would you agree the Baby Boomer "Me Generation" set up the stage for what we're seeing today?
- MadManE 11y ago
  But who set the stage for the Baby Boomers? Do we blame the previous generation for that? At some point, you need to take responsibility for your own actions. Even if the situation that you're in isn't your fault, it IS up to you what you do to get out of it.
  - Eric_WVGG 11y ago
    “Homes and education cost more than they used to” ‘You’re not working hard enough’ “There are no jobs” ‘You’re not looking hard enough’ “Okay I moved to shitsville to look for a working-class job, industry dried up and the unions are gone” ‘…’ JFC

gedy 11y ago

I know there's a myriad of causes, but friends - avoid debt, even if your peers, parents, media, whatever encourage you that it's "okay" for college, nice house, etc. It just boggles me that friends would borrow huge tuition and dorm costs for private college out of state, to get something like a Communications Degree with low income prospects. Even if they are passionate about the subject, they could've easily gotten it cheaper at a local state school and living at home. Or, taken their first few years at community college, etc. Willingness to borrow is at least one of the factors for rising costs. Debt is slavery and steals from your future.

superuser2 11y ago
>nice house Apartment leases are debt too - you are obligated to pay someone a fixed amount of money on a recurring basis for a fixed term. I suppose in a month-to-month lease you have the "option" of becoming homeless.
- techsupporter 11y ago
  OP said "nice house," not "any house." One of the trends I see in my millenial-GenX cohorts is the buying of expensive consumer goods the moment a sizable salary is conferred. Yes, it's a relief to finally have a job that pays enough to have money left at the end of the month. However, loading up the monthly expenses with a brand new (often oversized) vehicle and a house purchased for 5x annual salary is unwise. It happens quite often. Another thing to consider is that buying reduces mobility. If you buy in the "wrong" spot, you can be stuck there while opportunities in other areas go unfilled by you. If the economy is as truly broken as a lot of people my age think it is, why buy (or buy expensively) when there's a good chance that in two years better pay or a more balanced job will be found elsewhere?
  - superuser2 11y ago
    Consider that if those millennials are buying houses for 5x salary, then they must have been doing something right to save ~1x salary for a down payment. (Unless people are somehow getting mortgages without down payments these days?) I agree that buying reduces mobility - and I plan on renting for the foreseeable future. What I take issue with is the claim that it's possible or desirable for to avoid debt at all costs. Renting is not automatically a better financial decision than mortgaging, and for people who don't need the mobility it can be substantially worse. Consider that the worst case scenario for ownership (your home depreciates to $0) is still better than the best case scenario for renting (your rent stays flat) because a renter wouldn't have an asset to sell anyway, but the owner gets to continue living there without paying for it.

jessaustin 11y ago

Hasn't this also been true for "Generation X"? As if the stupid name weren't bad enough...

yarrel 11y ago
Yes, but Boomers only see Millenials.
MrZongle2 11y ago
Oddly enough, in the majority of these articles (and related discussions), I don't see much mention of Gen X. It's like nobody was born between the late 60s and early 80s.
- coldtea 11y ago
  They are neither up-and-coming struggling young people, nor retiring, in-power older people. So they don't matter as much regarding this for now... in 10-15 years though, when baby boomers will be gone...
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    This might be a bit optimistic. Boomers have been arriving early and overstaying their welcome in any and every situation for the entirety of their existence. With our luck, the great biotech transition will take place just in time for us to be stuck with them forever.
  - MrZongle2 11y ago
    "in 10-15 years though, when baby boomers will be gone..." ...then we'll be blamed for everything and we'll still hear about the Millennials.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  If your essential argument is that Millennials have not succeeded in life because they have not worked hard enough, the very last thing you want to do is call attention to Gen X, who has worked hard for decades already, and is still living paycheck to paycheck.

6stringmerc 11y ago

Other than my Dad giving me the strong advice from personal experience that "Making a living as a musician is not a pleasant or steady lifestyle choice" the one thing I've been glad to have heard long ago was "You'll probably never have the same standard of living as we've had in this home." Little did he know that a few years after that, and once I was on my own two feet, his employer of 30+ years would dump his pension on the US taxpayers and gut his benefits. Even he wasn't able to achieve the retirement peace of mind he worked for all those years. In hindisight, his statement plus what I witnessed happen doesn't make me feel like I'm missing out an 'entitlement' but rather a general suspiciousness the working world is rigged.

aantix 11y ago
Who did he work for?
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  A US commercial airline. Several have done the same kind of maneuver so I feel it's at least somewhat obfuscated the particular one.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

programminggeek 11y ago

Employee pay is stagnant, prices for all things are rising, and personal debt for the average person is largely out of control. We are all wage slaves now.

femto113 11y ago

This will only get worse, since millennials will also be saddled with paying their parent's generation's pensions. Inflation is the obvious answer, I just wonder if it will come without a major upheaval first.

vannevar 11y ago

The study seems to be looking at the relative distribution of wealth, in which case the conclusion is just another way of saying that more and more income is being captured by the wealthy. Older people in any generation are going to tend to be in the higher percentiles of wealth, so a general trend in wealth distribution from the poor to the rich will tend to favor them and disfavor the young. No need for rationalizing based on millenials' character, or even their micro-economics. The simple mathematical fact is that capitalism, absent some correctional force like progressive taxation, trends inevitably toward greater wealth and income disparity between rich and poor. It's built into the system; not a bug, but a feature.

PostThisTooFast 11y ago

Ugh, ENOUGH WITH THE IDIOTIC LABELS. What are we going to call the hordes of people born in the next 900+ years, who are born during no particular event or millennial rollover? Use numbers. Period. Something Android could learn, by the way. Then we don't have the kind of "generation creep" we've seen with the baby boomers, who went from being babies born right after WWII to being 20 years of babies.

bobby_9x 11y ago

Many are poor due to their own choices. I know many millennials that spend way too much on the newest gadgets/cell phones (I spend $30/month and get a cheap phone as opposed to the hundreds of dollars many pay on a plan and a new phone). Jobs are also an issue. Millennials have more education than their parents, but many choose not to use it. I know at least 5 millennials that either quit a well-paying job or just refuse to work at any company that isn’t ”changing the world”. I attribute it to entitlement. They feel they are owed a satisfying and well-paying job, when in reality, you need to earn it over many years. More proof of this is in their voting habits. Sanders is tje entitlement president and is supported, by far, by millennials.

godgod 11y ago

The American dream has been stolen by our globalist overlords. The good thing is, people are waking up to what it means to be a 21st century slave.

tunichtgut 11y ago

What i realised is, that the millennial generation (im gen y) has spawned a yolo (you only live once) or better to say, yoln (you only live now) attitude. They dont have much hope in their future, so they tend to live now. Not tomorrow. They dont safe money, they spend money, they max out their borrowing, they max out consumption. From their perspective, its perfectly logic to do so. And even some of my old friends, the kids from the 80s, have started to live with the "yoln" live style.