11 ms·

Millennials earn 20% less than Boomers did at same stage of life

121 points by micaeloliveira 10y ago

elmerfud 10y ago
Millennials prioritize entertainment and free time more than boomers as well. Millennials also start families later in life. These are the values boomers taught that money doesn't buy happiness. So this is not really shocking to see that they are not in the same place monetarily. I would view this is at least some measure of success. The boomers were able to teach a value system they believed was better than their life.
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  Anecdotally, most millenials I know who are waiting to start a family are doing it because they can't afford to, not by chose.
  - elmerfud 10y ago
    All the comments show my point. These are the values that were taught by the boomers. Ask a boomer, were they ready for a family when they got one? No, but it was the thing to do, so they did it, made it work, and life was hard. Go back and look at the old childhood photos and you'll see what I mean. These people clearly weren't ready for kids in our modern sense of being ready. This is a quite complex subject, but the simple view is priorities. There is a priority of short term thinking with millennials focused around instant gratification. That's not to say that it's wrong but it is a priority which has and effect on how life plays out. An easy example of this is how everything is described as a "hack" and not a "grind". Boomers, whether they knew it or not, were more long term focused. Part of it was a function of the world of the time. You had to wait for the Sears catalogue to come in the mail. You don't have a credit card so you make layaway payments etc... You just had to focus farther out. They scarified a lot of short term and gained a long term benefit. Sadly most, including this article, equate education with motivation. It's not the same thing. Going to college because you don't know what to do next and mom says go doesn't mean that the education will give you a leg up in life.
    - candiodari 10y ago
      Do you think a focus on instant gratification is anything new ? I mean you clearly do, but it seems such a weird point to make.
      - tmuir 10y ago
        The internet has shown us how wonderful instant access to the world's information can be, and we've decided that everything is better with internet. Its an extremely coherent point to make, in my opinion.
      - elmerfud 10y ago
        The focus on it isn't new, but the ability to realize it in a way never before is.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - aczerepinski 10y ago
    Agreed. Pre-school costs $15k/year where I live. There are an awful lot of careers in which that would be a tough pill to swallow. Maybe one parent stays at home with the kid... but then you're a single income family and housing prices are no joke either.
- im3w1l 10y ago
  Millennial are choosing to be lonely, poor, and own no house and car. They are choosing to be more anxious and depressed.
  - Pfhreak 10y ago
    What a peculiar thing to say.
    - candiodari 10y ago
      I think the point is to be sarcastic. Everytime somebody points out that people are worse off, any fact used to support that argument is immediately used to support the thesis that in fact everything is better. Less money - more spending - good, or as GP put it "Millennials prioritize entertainment and free time more than boomers as well" This of course assumes the problem is the choices boomers are making. Just so we're clear: people choose to work in Amazon fulfillment centers. Hell, boomers PAY amazon for transportation to work here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYUJjpIxkCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYUJjpIxkCU (seriously, when will congress bring down the hammer on companies charging employees ? It is always, always and again after that used to exploit the lowest workers). If you prefer to see this in government stats : https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12600000 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12600000 and -worse- https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02026625 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02026625 and https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02026628 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02026628 From most graphs I get the impression this is the situation. Since Obama came to office there has been the GFC. I think it would be fair to say that US employment has recovered about half the losses it endured during the GFC, taking all statistics together. That does not, to me, sound like a good result at all, and at least for me, is a big part of the explanation that Trump got elected. For most people employment is worse than when Obama came to power (of course he should probably not be blamed for the GFC, but still, he's got the top job. He bears some responsibility) Similar argument: More debt - more spending - good Those sorts of arguments. Truth is the economics for the vast majority of the world's population have steadily worsened since about 2000-2001 (worldwide average). Silicon Valley and in fact most huge cities are an exception.
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  It's not exactly by choice. Most millenials (myself included) would love to be in better financial condition. But we carry more debt and make less money than our parents did despite being better educated. We emphasize entertainment and free time because it's all we have left in otherwise dreary economic circumstances.
Altay- 10y ago
More people go to college today so we're 4 years later into the labor force. This will only mean something when we hit prime working age for millennials. Let's see the numbers then.
- Eric_WVGG 10y ago
  Millennials are reaching their mid thirties. Exactly what is prime working age?
  - sean_patel 10y ago
    > I thought my (Millennials) generation was born in 1992 or afterwards. So I was about to challenge your 'mid thirties' assertion. Wikipedia also has a wide range of start and stop birth years, ranging from 1976 to 1996 as the start birth year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials#Date_and_age_range_defining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials#Date_and_age_range... Then I saw this. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-... It claims that Millenials were born in between 1981 and 1997. Who is right?
    - thisone 10y ago
      Imo, there's a sandwich date range from around 1976 to 1982 where you either identify as Gen X or Gen Y/millennial. I'm someone in that gap and identify much more closely with millennials than with the Gen X slackers, though a lot of my childhood friends also in that gap identify more with Gen X. Perhaps it's a combination of my job, that i feel i grew up with (along with?) the internet because my parents were pretty fast in getting connected, and that i have older siblings who are very much Gen X as in leaving college during very difficult job times in the early 90s, and I never shared their experiences.
    - peteretep 10y ago
      I've always thought it was people born before the millenium, who turned 18 after it, so 1982-2000. Easy to remember that way, as well ;-)
soared 10y ago
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/millennials-to-snake-peop/jhkibealmjkbkafogihpeidfcgnigmlf?hl=en-US https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/millennials-to-sna...
- sean_patel 10y ago
  I don't get it. Why are you calling my generation 'Snake People'? Please explain yourself.
  - positr0n 10y ago
    I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but many people feel that "millennials" is an overused term in the media by journalists that either don't have a deep grasp of the subject or are just trying to get clicks. Or that it's stupid to divide people into arbitrary generations then assign them a bunch of personality characteristics. Etc Etc. Similar to how "the cloud" is used so often it is just a meaningless buzzword. You've probably heard of the cloud-to-butt extension[0]. This is its less-famous sibling. [0]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus/apmlngnhgbnjpajelfkmabhkfapgnoai?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
modoret 10y ago
Oh noes. Millennials.
- AznHisoka 10y ago
  i used to make fun of millenials until i found out i was one myself.
  - modoret 10y ago
    We detached this thread because blah blah blah...
    - sctb 10y ago
      You ought to have pulled out the ol' “Please comment civilly and substantively or not at all”, which we ban accounts for refusing.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
malandrew 10y ago
Did they control for education attained and area of study in college/university?
speeder 10y ago
Note that even in countries where the absolute amount of money is better, the stuff on this article still applies. I am from Brazil, and many boomers told me when I was young how awesome I was to be young, because I was living in a golden age where I didn't had to walk uphill both ways to school, could have computer, and whatnot. But it is me that envy them now, I am 29, have zero income, lots of debt, and own no assets (not even a bicycle). The same applies to almost all my friends and aquaintances, and even so, the "almost" is because one of them is an absolute exception (he was already rich, and made a hit game, his game is probably on top20 most sold on Steam right now...), and some of the humble and smart ones decided to ignore the "adults" advice, don't go to college and deliberately choose professions seen in bad light in the social sense (construction, plumbing, car mechanic, CNC operator, security guard...) The few friends I have that have families, did it by accident (ie: accidental pregnancy), and all of them are unemployed, and their spouses (when they actually have one, some are single parents) are unemployed too, the "least worse" couple are the ones that have moderately rich parents, and they have both sides of the family giving their child the stuff the child needs. And the thing is, although this is mostly about my country (Brazil), I have lots of friends outside Brazil too, that are also in this situation, one guy I know is an absolute crazy coding genius (And his game is rumored to have inspired No Man's Sky) and he is 40, and also childless, and own only a very old (20+ years I think) car, I have some Canadian friends also with problems like that, I know people that worked in AAA game studios around the planet and still failed to make enough money to pay student debts and start a family. To be honest, the situation just feel hopeless, sometimes I get myself with the intruding unwanted thought of wishing someone would start WWIII just to see if at least life would be less boring. And from what I am seeing in the "mood" in social media and elections worldwide, I am not alone in this...
- paulddraper 10y ago
  > start WWIII just to see if at least life would be less boring Yes, another 3% of humanity dying in a global war would be very interesting.
- freshhawk 10y ago
  > I get myself with the intruding unwanted thought of wishing someone would start WWIII just to see if at least life would be less boring. That is a damn good description of why accelerationists are gaining popularity. I think a lot of the alt-right obsession comes from this as well.
tmuir 10y ago
In other news: when you look at a complex, multidimensional problem on a single, linear axis, you arrive at misguided conclusions.
- ElectronCharge 10y ago
  The "complex, multidimensional problem on a single, linear axis" is the economy - mismanagement of same over the last eight years results in where we're at. It should improve going forward... :-)
  - tmuir 10y ago
    I can't tell if you're disagreeing with me, or proving my point by example.
  - heurist 10y ago
    You mean over the last 40 years?
  - untog 10y ago
    Given the state of the economy in 2008, I think we're going to need to back a little more than eight years I'm afraid.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
How do you compare these things? "The same stage of life" comes successively later in every generation.
- ElectronCharge 10y ago
  That is only because of bad parenting really. Discuss...
  - chc 10y ago
    Alternatively, it could be because of increasing lifespans and ballooning educational requirements for the average job.
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      It's because the barrier to entry into employment rises because the overall productive sector is - despite all the horror stories - quite effective at producing. They don't really need your help. My father, born in 1930, had to perform manual labor on farms because that was how stuff got produced. There was no barrier to entry. He then worked until retirement on mechanical phone switches, which are now beyond obsolete.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
I cannot say I'm very impressed with the article. I could pick out a number of millenials who are doing better than their parents at the same age. But I wouldn't use that to argue that everything is okay. One thing that has stuck out at me has been the ways in which people have money drained from them. I think there is a huge student loan problem where young people were "sold" a crappy education. But setting that aside for the moment there is a huge difference in lifestyle that I see in people; going out to eat more, paying for basic entertainment, communication charges, credit, and transportation. Something that seems to be missed on people is that debt is very corrosive to your future wealth. People who carry a balance on a credit card, month after month, may feel like its "okay" because they always have enough to at least pay the minimum but it isn't. When they don't take the time to each bag lunches, breakfast and dinner at home they are sending more of their money out into the world and out of their future. When the world tells them every car has to have backup cameras it means they are going to have bigger car payments. Coffee habits, in app purchases, cable TV instead of free over the air TV. Some people budget badly, some don't. But before you slam an entire "generation" I think it makes sense to look a bit deeper at the forces at play.
- closeparen 10y ago
  You are slamming an entire generation by claiming that the problem is spending irresponsibly on frivolous things. I don't blame you - it must feel great to feel that the problems of the world are rooted in others being less virtuous than you. The trouble is, my generation faces lower real wages and higher housing costs, and those effects are so large that Starbucks habits are basically noise in comparison. That narrative doesn't pat you on the back for your superior discipline, so you're not impresssed with it, and you pivot to anecdata about the moral weakness of kids these days.
  - developer2 10y ago
    >> those effects are so large that Starbucks habits are basically noise in comparison Right, because spending $1500-2000/year on Starbucks and another $2000-$4000+/year on McDonald's and other takeout for 2-3 meals a day is "noise". Consumerism is a very real thing today. There are lower middle class people who blow $30-50 a day on Starbucks, energy drinks, going out for lunch, and ordering pizza for dinner. Throw in alcohol, cigarettes, and/or weed. You can talk about wages and the price of a home all you want. Nobody 20-40 years ago threw 30-60%+ of their net pay away on daily impulse/routine purchases. Now it's extremely common. For the pool of people who work 40+ hours a week, while not spending money on any of the stupid things listed above, who still find it hard to make ends meet - those are the people I sympathize with. However, even many people who claim to be wise with their spending like to think that their $7/day Starbucks is just a "small indulgence". $7/day * 5 work days a week * 50 weeks a year = $1750/year. Make it $9-10 dollars a day, for $2500/year, to add a muffin to your morning coffee.
corndoge 10y ago
I can't find the link to the study in the article, I must have missed it.
gnerix 10y ago
The boomers inherited the only advanced country in the world that hadn't had its industrial capacity reduced to rubble over the course of two world wars. The US was the only manufacturing supplier left, so naturally every working age adult had a wealth of employment opportunities. Another way to look at the plight of the millennials (full disclosure, I'm a millennial) is "hurray, society hasn't faced a major setback in the form of a catastrophic global war in 80 years!"
- hibikir 10y ago
  The situation is not just unique to the US though: Many countries which had their industrial capacity reduced to rubble are still in the exact same boat: People that started working in the 50s 60s and 70s did a lot better comparatively than those that started after 2000. The 50s were far less happy in Europe than in the US, but there was just so much progress to be made that hit everyone. A big part of it was also population growth. There's plenty of progress to be made in this decade, but a much smaller percentage of the population is part of this boom: Even for those of us that saw the dot com boom, tech is a picnic. I look at the outcomes of people that went into science, for instance, and I see them against a wall of tenured professors that will not retire, and an industry that has less demand than there's supply. Those that just picked the wrong major in college are struggling, and those that didn't even go to college, even more so. The only ones ahead of their parents went to tech or got a career by using their connections as a stepping ladder: It's easy to do well in law when daddy makes you partner, stays a few more years and then retires. As a society, we have to do our best to avoid becoming Brazil, and find ways to improve total outcomes. Having a small group of people that make a whole lot of money, and who give their advantage to the next generation, while a lot of people have worse outcomes than their parents is not exactly a recipe for a happy, peaceful society.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    I like how you've identified what the key difference is. Demand-limited. Not supply limited like we have been for the past 60 years. I think it applies to more than just academic jobs though. Oil. Cars. Fridges. Laptops. Computers. Dolls. For all of it demand limits seem to be the problem.
anguswithgusto 10y ago
I'm surprised at how much flack this article is getting here on HN. Is it because we're all making those sweet 1% salaries in tech? All my non-tech/finance friends are paying obscenely high rent, crippled with student debt, can't afford houses, can't afford cars, and three times as educated as their parents, but paid less than their parents were. In the case of unpaid internships (unavoidable for lots of industries, especially in the arts and media), many aren't being paid at all. I think there are some possible cultural reasons (our generation being, on a whole I think, a bit less materialistic and not as motivated to work hard, boring, financially-rewarding jobs [like accounting] and more likely to want those sexy art, media, and non-profit jobs.) But overall I think the Boomers have dealt a real bum hand to their children.
- samatman 10y ago
  I hope that, within my lifetime, "unpaid intern" sounds to the average ear the way "indentured servant" sounds today. It's a despicable racket.
  - aries1980 10y ago
    …and it is illegal in most countries, including the US.
- freshhawk 10y ago
  > Is it because we're all making those sweet 1% salaries in tech? Probably. We all know wealth inequality has risen quite a bit as well, so that average of 20% less is not distributed evenly. So to those in places like the valley, where you have a statistically huge chance of making more than your parents did it probably seems wrong. If you have any contact with the rest of the world it is pretty obvious. And culturally, I think that's the impact of all that education. Their parents and grandparents lived in the culture that invented the "mid-life crisis" as a description of when you realized that your life choices were the result of being lied to about what makes for a good life. I wouldn't be surprised if the lessons of this finally sunk in. Helped along a whole lot by the lack of similar options due to boomer politics.
- 10y ago
paulddraper 10y ago
There're also more of them working too. Because women work nowadays.
- yasp 10y ago
  Yes. Most two parent families require both parents to work, whereas in the past most middle class families required only one parent to work while the other would take care of the children. "progress"
tomohawk 10y ago
A boomer I know bought a house right out of college. He graduated with a civil engineering degree. The house cost twice what his salary was as a brand new CE. The house is recognizable today as a standard split foyer. College for me (in the 80s) was still fairly inexpensive compared to now, but when I graduated with an EE degree, houses started at 4x or more than what I made. I see millenials taking higher risks with their housing. Instead of living in the burbs, they're in the city where they get the crime and no decent schools discount. I often see them head for the burbs after getting mugged or when they have kids that need to go to school. But by that time, they're more established and can afford it. Or, they live way out in the boonies and commute. And now, even the good jobs are being offshored via H1B, paid for by our tax dollars.
- cobookman 10y ago
  > College for me (in the 80s) was still fairly inexpensive compared to now, but when I graduated with an EE degree, houses started at 4x or more than what I made. In silicon valley housed started at around 10x what I made starting out of college. I'll mention that more millennials should consider leaving to live in non 1st class cities. Just look at atlanta vs sf (https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&city1=Atlanta%2C+GA&country2=United+States&city2=San+Francisco%2C+CA https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...). I can tell you that SF wages are not 1.8x ATL's.
snarfy 10y ago
There is no mention of purchasing power. My hunch is it's even worse than the 20% less income.
- thisnotmyacc 10y ago
  I reckon you'd be wrong. It cost $1,000,000,000 to own a computer for baby boomers. I have (depending on how you count) between 3 (PCs - 2 mac and a Windows), and 11 (3 PCs, 2 phones, 2 console, an appleTV, 2 iPads and a Kindle). That was impossible for my parents, heck for 18 year old me. People think life is harder now because the equations of life are: * Happiness = Reality - Expectation. * Success = MAXIMUM_POSSIBLE_WE_ARE_EXPOSED_TO - what I achieve. Most people expect a lot these days, and get slightly less and as a result are miserable. On top of that, MAXIMUM_POSSIBLE_WE_ARE_EXPOSED_TO has increased, as we have more means of communication. In mathematical terms, the gap between the each of these values of a good life: 1. The absolute highest possible value 2. The MEAN existence. 3. The MEDIAN existence is increasing. In 1970, there were lots of limits. Today, you can be a YouTube star at home. As some people have it really good, this bumps the maximum and mean values, whereas the median hasn't moved as much since 1970l even though it has increased. As examples, there are people like Casey Neistat and various Vloggers that live seemingly great lives. There are pro skaters, pro-surfers, musicians, actors, and then the tech billionaires. There are digital nomads, off-the-griders and other niche communties, and I'm sitting here reading Hacker news. But that is BECAUSE we have just so many more options today. We also live in a world where the possibilities are vast - from travel (I have been to every continent except Antarctica), to work (so many more jobs in niche areas), to lifestyle, range of hobbies, foods available (baby boomers thought Pizza and pasta where exotic), even better COFFEE. As there is so much possible, and the hours in week has remained static, we all fall short of the MAXIMUM_POSSIBLE_WE_ARE_EXPOSED_TO by a very long margin. No one is eating enough new or interesting foods, has enough cool hobbies they get paid for, plays enough games, has enough sex or spare time or earns Zuckerberg money - and by no one I mean no one person can ever achieve all of those things at once, so when we compare someone else's 100% dedication to our 0.1%, we feel inadequate. But man, what a world! I am in Australia, writing a response to a person who commented on a system hosted in the USA that was impossible in 1970, using a pocket computer I use to communicate with literally the WORLD, about an article published in USA Today today (well, in some ways technically yesterday as I am a day in front of the west coast of the USA) that would never have reached my country in 1970. What is that worth? Certainly not nothing, even if many people deluded believe they would rather the 3 bedroom house in 1970 without a computer, air conditioning or the internet, not to mention the raft of socially limiting conditions. Rant over!
ry4n413 10y ago
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/489/946/057.gif http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/489/946/057...
darksaints 10y ago
Now throw in the fact that we: 1) have much higher housing costs, due to housing policies created by boomers 2) have much higher out of pocket education costs, due to education policies created by boomers 3) have much higher out of pocket health care costs, due to health care policies created by boomers 4) have much higher payroll taxes due to social security raiding and general mismanagement by boomers 5) have much higher sales taxes due to erosion of property tax revenues from policies created by boomers 6) have much higher future income taxes due to decades of deficits from policies created by boomers. And they after they are done FUBAR-ing us, they call us entitled for wanting reform.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Social Security tax rates haven't increased a lot since 1984. The maximum income they apply to has increased since then though: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2011-02.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2011-02.html (using the inflation adjusted numbers, 20-25%) I'm not real sure what you mean by social security raiding. Of course the government has borrowed and spent much of the Social Security trust fund, but this has little bearing on the future of Social Security, as the borrowing has been fully accounted for. Some future government could decide not to pay the money back, but they would be responsible for that, not the government that borrowed the money.
  - darksaints 10y ago
    If I take out a loan from a bank, I am the one who benefits from the loan, and I am the one that pays it back. But if you borrow from social security, the benficiary and the payee are not the same person, or even the same generation of people. One generation benefits, the next is on the hook to pay. And that is exactly what happened. Boomers borrowed from social security because they weren't willing to raise taxes on themselves. They promised to pay it back using Millenials' taxes. They got the benefits, we got the debt.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Oh sure, the debt is not good for the future but in that sense it doesn't matter a great deal who they borrowed from.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
shoefly 10y ago
Most of them went into the workforce when the Great recession hit. The ability to write off a student loan as a bankruptcy was removed in 2005. While part of this law has been thrown out, many people are still stuck as indentured servants to the loan sharks. Housing is insane... around here in the bay area, but from the older people I've chatted with, it was always a tough market. Now, if you moved to my hometown, you could get a beautiful home for $200k.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
RichardHeart 10y ago
Hey at least house prices are rising though amirite?
astrostl 10y ago
Income in a vacuum isn't all that useful a metric. What matters more is what you can do with it, leading to what matters most: your actual quality of life. Without feeling compelled to do a deep analysis, taking a 20% hit in exchange for, say, being able to afford broadband and a smartphone/notebook to use it is a deal I'd make all day.

121 points by micaeloliveira 10y ago

Millennials prioritize entertainment and free time more than boomers as well. Millennials also start families later in life. These are the values boomers taught that money doesn't buy happiness. So this is not really shocking to see that they are not in the same place monetarily. I would view this is at least some measure of success. The boomers were able to teach a value system they believed was better than their life.

throwaway2016a 10y ago
Anecdotally, most millenials I know who are waiting to start a family are doing it because they can't afford to, not by chose.
- elmerfud 10y ago
  All the comments show my point. These are the values that were taught by the boomers. Ask a boomer, were they ready for a family when they got one? No, but it was the thing to do, so they did it, made it work, and life was hard. Go back and look at the old childhood photos and you'll see what I mean. These people clearly weren't ready for kids in our modern sense of being ready. This is a quite complex subject, but the simple view is priorities. There is a priority of short term thinking with millennials focused around instant gratification. That's not to say that it's wrong but it is a priority which has and effect on how life plays out. An easy example of this is how everything is described as a "hack" and not a "grind". Boomers, whether they knew it or not, were more long term focused. Part of it was a function of the world of the time. You had to wait for the Sears catalogue to come in the mail. You don't have a credit card so you make layaway payments etc... You just had to focus farther out. They scarified a lot of short term and gained a long term benefit. Sadly most, including this article, equate education with motivation. It's not the same thing. Going to college because you don't know what to do next and mom says go doesn't mean that the education will give you a leg up in life.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    Do you think a focus on instant gratification is anything new ? I mean you clearly do, but it seems such a weird point to make.
    - tmuir 10y ago
      The internet has shown us how wonderful instant access to the world's information can be, and we've decided that everything is better with internet. Its an extremely coherent point to make, in my opinion.
    - elmerfud 10y ago
      The focus on it isn't new, but the ability to realize it in a way never before is.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- aczerepinski 10y ago
  Agreed. Pre-school costs $15k/year where I live. There are an awful lot of careers in which that would be a tough pill to swallow. Maybe one parent stays at home with the kid... but then you're a single income family and housing prices are no joke either.
im3w1l 10y ago
Millennial are choosing to be lonely, poor, and own no house and car. They are choosing to be more anxious and depressed.
- Pfhreak 10y ago
  What a peculiar thing to say.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    I think the point is to be sarcastic. Everytime somebody points out that people are worse off, any fact used to support that argument is immediately used to support the thesis that in fact everything is better. Less money - more spending - good, or as GP put it "Millennials prioritize entertainment and free time more than boomers as well" This of course assumes the problem is the choices boomers are making. Just so we're clear: people choose to work in Amazon fulfillment centers. Hell, boomers PAY amazon for transportation to work here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYUJjpIxkCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYUJjpIxkCU (seriously, when will congress bring down the hammer on companies charging employees ? It is always, always and again after that used to exploit the lowest workers). If you prefer to see this in government stats : https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12600000 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12600000 and -worse- https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02026625 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02026625 and https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02026628 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02026628 From most graphs I get the impression this is the situation. Since Obama came to office there has been the GFC. I think it would be fair to say that US employment has recovered about half the losses it endured during the GFC, taking all statistics together. That does not, to me, sound like a good result at all, and at least for me, is a big part of the explanation that Trump got elected. For most people employment is worse than when Obama came to power (of course he should probably not be blamed for the GFC, but still, he's got the top job. He bears some responsibility) Similar argument: More debt - more spending - good Those sorts of arguments. Truth is the economics for the vast majority of the world's population have steadily worsened since about 2000-2001 (worldwide average). Silicon Valley and in fact most huge cities are an exception.
Mikeb85 10y ago
It's not exactly by choice. Most millenials (myself included) would love to be in better financial condition. But we carry more debt and make less money than our parents did despite being better educated. We emphasize entertainment and free time because it's all we have left in otherwise dreary economic circumstances.

Altay- 10y ago

More people go to college today so we're 4 years later into the labor force. This will only mean something when we hit prime working age for millennials. Let's see the numbers then.

Eric_WVGG 10y ago
Millennials are reaching their mid thirties. Exactly what is prime working age?
- sean_patel 10y ago
  > I thought my (Millennials) generation was born in 1992 or afterwards. So I was about to challenge your 'mid thirties' assertion. Wikipedia also has a wide range of start and stop birth years, ranging from 1976 to 1996 as the start birth year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials#Date_and_age_range_defining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials#Date_and_age_range... Then I saw this. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-... It claims that Millenials were born in between 1981 and 1997. Who is right?
  - thisone 10y ago
    Imo, there's a sandwich date range from around 1976 to 1982 where you either identify as Gen X or Gen Y/millennial. I'm someone in that gap and identify much more closely with millennials than with the Gen X slackers, though a lot of my childhood friends also in that gap identify more with Gen X. Perhaps it's a combination of my job, that i feel i grew up with (along with?) the internet because my parents were pretty fast in getting connected, and that i have older siblings who are very much Gen X as in leaving college during very difficult job times in the early 90s, and I never shared their experiences.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    I've always thought it was people born before the millenium, who turned 18 after it, so 1982-2000. Easy to remember that way, as well ;-)

soared 10y ago

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/millennials-to-snake-peop/jhkibealmjkbkafogihpeidfcgnigmlf?hl=en-US https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/millennials-to-sna...

sean_patel 10y ago
I don't get it. Why are you calling my generation 'Snake People'? Please explain yourself.
- positr0n 10y ago
  I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but many people feel that "millennials" is an overused term in the media by journalists that either don't have a deep grasp of the subject or are just trying to get clicks. Or that it's stupid to divide people into arbitrary generations then assign them a bunch of personality characteristics. Etc Etc. Similar to how "the cloud" is used so often it is just a meaningless buzzword. You've probably heard of the cloud-to-butt extension[0]. This is its less-famous sibling. [0]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus/apmlngnhgbnjpajelfkmabhkfapgnoai?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

modoret 10y ago

Oh noes. Millennials.

AznHisoka 10y ago
i used to make fun of millenials until i found out i was one myself.
- modoret 10y ago
  We detached this thread because blah blah blah...
  - sctb 10y ago
    You ought to have pulled out the ol' “Please comment civilly and substantively or not at all”, which we ban accounts for refusing.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

malandrew 10y ago

Did they control for education attained and area of study in college/university?

speeder 10y ago

Note that even in countries where the absolute amount of money is better, the stuff on this article still applies. I am from Brazil, and many boomers told me when I was young how awesome I was to be young, because I was living in a golden age where I didn't had to walk uphill both ways to school, could have computer, and whatnot. But it is me that envy them now, I am 29, have zero income, lots of debt, and own no assets (not even a bicycle). The same applies to almost all my friends and aquaintances, and even so, the "almost" is because one of them is an absolute exception (he was already rich, and made a hit game, his game is probably on top20 most sold on Steam right now...), and some of the humble and smart ones decided to ignore the "adults" advice, don't go to college and deliberately choose professions seen in bad light in the social sense (construction, plumbing, car mechanic, CNC operator, security guard...) The few friends I have that have families, did it by accident (ie: accidental pregnancy), and all of them are unemployed, and their spouses (when they actually have one, some are single parents) are unemployed too, the "least worse" couple are the ones that have moderately rich parents, and they have both sides of the family giving their child the stuff the child needs. And the thing is, although this is mostly about my country (Brazil), I have lots of friends outside Brazil too, that are also in this situation, one guy I know is an absolute crazy coding genius (And his game is rumored to have inspired No Man's Sky) and he is 40, and also childless, and own only a very old (20+ years I think) car, I have some Canadian friends also with problems like that, I know people that worked in AAA game studios around the planet and still failed to make enough money to pay student debts and start a family. To be honest, the situation just feel hopeless, sometimes I get myself with the intruding unwanted thought of wishing someone would start WWIII just to see if at least life would be less boring. And from what I am seeing in the "mood" in social media and elections worldwide, I am not alone in this...

paulddraper 10y ago
> start WWIII just to see if at least life would be less boring Yes, another 3% of humanity dying in a global war would be very interesting.
freshhawk 10y ago
> I get myself with the intruding unwanted thought of wishing someone would start WWIII just to see if at least life would be less boring. That is a damn good description of why accelerationists are gaining popularity. I think a lot of the alt-right obsession comes from this as well.

tmuir 10y ago

In other news: when you look at a complex, multidimensional problem on a single, linear axis, you arrive at misguided conclusions.

ElectronCharge 10y ago
The "complex, multidimensional problem on a single, linear axis" is the economy - mismanagement of same over the last eight years results in where we're at. It should improve going forward... :-)
- tmuir 10y ago
  I can't tell if you're disagreeing with me, or proving my point by example.
- heurist 10y ago
  You mean over the last 40 years?
- untog 10y ago
  Given the state of the economy in 2008, I think we're going to need to back a little more than eight years I'm afraid.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

How do you compare these things? "The same stage of life" comes successively later in every generation.

ElectronCharge 10y ago
That is only because of bad parenting really. Discuss...
- chc 10y ago
  Alternatively, it could be because of increasing lifespans and ballooning educational requirements for the average job.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    It's because the barrier to entry into employment rises because the overall productive sector is - despite all the horror stories - quite effective at producing. They don't really need your help. My father, born in 1930, had to perform manual labor on farms because that was how stuff got produced. There was no barrier to entry. He then worked until retirement on mechanical phone switches, which are now beyond obsolete.

ChuckMcM 10y ago

I cannot say I'm very impressed with the article. I could pick out a number of millenials who are doing better than their parents at the same age. But I wouldn't use that to argue that everything is okay. One thing that has stuck out at me has been the ways in which people have money drained from them. I think there is a huge student loan problem where young people were "sold" a crappy education. But setting that aside for the moment there is a huge difference in lifestyle that I see in people; going out to eat more, paying for basic entertainment, communication charges, credit, and transportation. Something that seems to be missed on people is that debt is very corrosive to your future wealth. People who carry a balance on a credit card, month after month, may feel like its "okay" because they always have enough to at least pay the minimum but it isn't. When they don't take the time to each bag lunches, breakfast and dinner at home they are sending more of their money out into the world and out of their future. When the world tells them every car has to have backup cameras it means they are going to have bigger car payments. Coffee habits, in app purchases, cable TV instead of free over the air TV. Some people budget badly, some don't. But before you slam an entire "generation" I think it makes sense to look a bit deeper at the forces at play.

closeparen 10y ago
You are slamming an entire generation by claiming that the problem is spending irresponsibly on frivolous things. I don't blame you - it must feel great to feel that the problems of the world are rooted in others being less virtuous than you. The trouble is, my generation faces lower real wages and higher housing costs, and those effects are so large that Starbucks habits are basically noise in comparison. That narrative doesn't pat you on the back for your superior discipline, so you're not impresssed with it, and you pivot to anecdata about the moral weakness of kids these days.
- developer2 10y ago
  >> those effects are so large that Starbucks habits are basically noise in comparison Right, because spending $1500-2000/year on Starbucks and another $2000-$4000+/year on McDonald's and other takeout for 2-3 meals a day is "noise". Consumerism is a very real thing today. There are lower middle class people who blow $30-50 a day on Starbucks, energy drinks, going out for lunch, and ordering pizza for dinner. Throw in alcohol, cigarettes, and/or weed. You can talk about wages and the price of a home all you want. Nobody 20-40 years ago threw 30-60%+ of their net pay away on daily impulse/routine purchases. Now it's extremely common. For the pool of people who work 40+ hours a week, while not spending money on any of the stupid things listed above, who still find it hard to make ends meet - those are the people I sympathize with. However, even many people who claim to be wise with their spending like to think that their $7/day Starbucks is just a "small indulgence". $7/day * 5 work days a week * 50 weeks a year = $1750/year. Make it $9-10 dollars a day, for $2500/year, to add a muffin to your morning coffee.

corndoge 10y ago

I can't find the link to the study in the article, I must have missed it.

gnerix 10y ago

The boomers inherited the only advanced country in the world that hadn't had its industrial capacity reduced to rubble over the course of two world wars. The US was the only manufacturing supplier left, so naturally every working age adult had a wealth of employment opportunities. Another way to look at the plight of the millennials (full disclosure, I'm a millennial) is "hurray, society hasn't faced a major setback in the form of a catastrophic global war in 80 years!"

hibikir 10y ago
The situation is not just unique to the US though: Many countries which had their industrial capacity reduced to rubble are still in the exact same boat: People that started working in the 50s 60s and 70s did a lot better comparatively than those that started after 2000. The 50s were far less happy in Europe than in the US, but there was just so much progress to be made that hit everyone. A big part of it was also population growth. There's plenty of progress to be made in this decade, but a much smaller percentage of the population is part of this boom: Even for those of us that saw the dot com boom, tech is a picnic. I look at the outcomes of people that went into science, for instance, and I see them against a wall of tenured professors that will not retire, and an industry that has less demand than there's supply. Those that just picked the wrong major in college are struggling, and those that didn't even go to college, even more so. The only ones ahead of their parents went to tech or got a career by using their connections as a stepping ladder: It's easy to do well in law when daddy makes you partner, stays a few more years and then retires. As a society, we have to do our best to avoid becoming Brazil, and find ways to improve total outcomes. Having a small group of people that make a whole lot of money, and who give their advantage to the next generation, while a lot of people have worse outcomes than their parents is not exactly a recipe for a happy, peaceful society.
- candiodari 10y ago
  I like how you've identified what the key difference is. Demand-limited. Not supply limited like we have been for the past 60 years. I think it applies to more than just academic jobs though. Oil. Cars. Fridges. Laptops. Computers. Dolls. For all of it demand limits seem to be the problem.

anguswithgusto 10y ago

I'm surprised at how much flack this article is getting here on HN. Is it because we're all making those sweet 1% salaries in tech? All my non-tech/finance friends are paying obscenely high rent, crippled with student debt, can't afford houses, can't afford cars, and three times as educated as their parents, but paid less than their parents were. In the case of unpaid internships (unavoidable for lots of industries, especially in the arts and media), many aren't being paid at all. I think there are some possible cultural reasons (our generation being, on a whole I think, a bit less materialistic and not as motivated to work hard, boring, financially-rewarding jobs [like accounting] and more likely to want those sexy art, media, and non-profit jobs.) But overall I think the Boomers have dealt a real bum hand to their children.

samatman 10y ago
I hope that, within my lifetime, "unpaid intern" sounds to the average ear the way "indentured servant" sounds today. It's a despicable racket.
- aries1980 10y ago
  …and it is illegal in most countries, including the US.
freshhawk 10y ago
> Is it because we're all making those sweet 1% salaries in tech? Probably. We all know wealth inequality has risen quite a bit as well, so that average of 20% less is not distributed evenly. So to those in places like the valley, where you have a statistically huge chance of making more than your parents did it probably seems wrong. If you have any contact with the rest of the world it is pretty obvious. And culturally, I think that's the impact of all that education. Their parents and grandparents lived in the culture that invented the "mid-life crisis" as a description of when you realized that your life choices were the result of being lied to about what makes for a good life. I wouldn't be surprised if the lessons of this finally sunk in. Helped along a whole lot by the lack of similar options due to boomer politics.
10y ago

paulddraper 10y ago

There're also more of them working too. Because women work nowadays.

yasp 10y ago
Yes. Most two parent families require both parents to work, whereas in the past most middle class families required only one parent to work while the other would take care of the children. "progress"

tomohawk 10y ago

A boomer I know bought a house right out of college. He graduated with a civil engineering degree. The house cost twice what his salary was as a brand new CE. The house is recognizable today as a standard split foyer. College for me (in the 80s) was still fairly inexpensive compared to now, but when I graduated with an EE degree, houses started at 4x or more than what I made. I see millenials taking higher risks with their housing. Instead of living in the burbs, they're in the city where they get the crime and no decent schools discount. I often see them head for the burbs after getting mugged or when they have kids that need to go to school. But by that time, they're more established and can afford it. Or, they live way out in the boonies and commute. And now, even the good jobs are being offshored via H1B, paid for by our tax dollars.

cobookman 10y ago
> College for me (in the 80s) was still fairly inexpensive compared to now, but when I graduated with an EE degree, houses started at 4x or more than what I made. In silicon valley housed started at around 10x what I made starting out of college. I'll mention that more millennials should consider leaving to live in non 1st class cities. Just look at atlanta vs sf (https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&city1=Atlanta%2C+GA&country2=United+States&city2=San+Francisco%2C+CA https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...). I can tell you that SF wages are not 1.8x ATL's.

snarfy 10y ago

There is no mention of purchasing power. My hunch is it's even worse than the 20% less income.

thisnotmyacc 10y ago
I reckon you'd be wrong. It cost $1,000,000,000 to own a computer for baby boomers. I have (depending on how you count) between 3 (PCs - 2 mac and a Windows), and 11 (3 PCs, 2 phones, 2 console, an appleTV, 2 iPads and a Kindle). That was impossible for my parents, heck for 18 year old me. People think life is harder now because the equations of life are: * Happiness = Reality - Expectation. * Success = MAXIMUM_POSSIBLE_WE_ARE_EXPOSED_TO - what I achieve. Most people expect a lot these days, and get slightly less and as a result are miserable. On top of that, MAXIMUM_POSSIBLE_WE_ARE_EXPOSED_TO has increased, as we have more means of communication. In mathematical terms, the gap between the each of these values of a good life: 1. The absolute highest possible value 2. The MEAN existence. 3. The MEDIAN existence is increasing. In 1970, there were lots of limits. Today, you can be a YouTube star at home. As some people have it really good, this bumps the maximum and mean values, whereas the median hasn't moved as much since 1970l even though it has increased. As examples, there are people like Casey Neistat and various Vloggers that live seemingly great lives. There are pro skaters, pro-surfers, musicians, actors, and then the tech billionaires. There are digital nomads, off-the-griders and other niche communties, and I'm sitting here reading Hacker news. But that is BECAUSE we have just so many more options today. We also live in a world where the possibilities are vast - from travel (I have been to every continent except Antarctica), to work (so many more jobs in niche areas), to lifestyle, range of hobbies, foods available (baby boomers thought Pizza and pasta where exotic), even better COFFEE. As there is so much possible, and the hours in week has remained static, we all fall short of the MAXIMUM_POSSIBLE_WE_ARE_EXPOSED_TO by a very long margin. No one is eating enough new or interesting foods, has enough cool hobbies they get paid for, plays enough games, has enough sex or spare time or earns Zuckerberg money - and by no one I mean no one person can ever achieve all of those things at once, so when we compare someone else's 100% dedication to our 0.1%, we feel inadequate. But man, what a world! I am in Australia, writing a response to a person who commented on a system hosted in the USA that was impossible in 1970, using a pocket computer I use to communicate with literally the WORLD, about an article published in USA Today today (well, in some ways technically yesterday as I am a day in front of the west coast of the USA) that would never have reached my country in 1970. What is that worth? Certainly not nothing, even if many people deluded believe they would rather the 3 bedroom house in 1970 without a computer, air conditioning or the internet, not to mention the raft of socially limiting conditions. Rant over!

ry4n413 10y ago

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/489/946/057.gif http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/489/946/057...

darksaints 10y ago

Now throw in the fact that we: 1) have much higher housing costs, due to housing policies created by boomers 2) have much higher out of pocket education costs, due to education policies created by boomers 3) have much higher out of pocket health care costs, due to health care policies created by boomers 4) have much higher payroll taxes due to social security raiding and general mismanagement by boomers 5) have much higher sales taxes due to erosion of property tax revenues from policies created by boomers 6) have much higher future income taxes due to decades of deficits from policies created by boomers. And they after they are done FUBAR-ing us, they call us entitled for wanting reform.

maxerickson 10y ago
Social Security tax rates haven't increased a lot since 1984. The maximum income they apply to has increased since then though: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2011-02.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2011-02.html (using the inflation adjusted numbers, 20-25%) I'm not real sure what you mean by social security raiding. Of course the government has borrowed and spent much of the Social Security trust fund, but this has little bearing on the future of Social Security, as the borrowing has been fully accounted for. Some future government could decide not to pay the money back, but they would be responsible for that, not the government that borrowed the money.
- darksaints 10y ago
  If I take out a loan from a bank, I am the one who benefits from the loan, and I am the one that pays it back. But if you borrow from social security, the benficiary and the payee are not the same person, or even the same generation of people. One generation benefits, the next is on the hook to pay. And that is exactly what happened. Boomers borrowed from social security because they weren't willing to raise taxes on themselves. They promised to pay it back using Millenials' taxes. They got the benefits, we got the debt.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Oh sure, the debt is not good for the future but in that sense it doesn't matter a great deal who they borrowed from.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

shoefly 10y ago

Most of them went into the workforce when the Great recession hit. The ability to write off a student loan as a bankruptcy was removed in 2005. While part of this law has been thrown out, many people are still stuck as indentured servants to the loan sharks. Housing is insane... around here in the bay area, but from the older people I've chatted with, it was always a tough market. Now, if you moved to my hometown, you could get a beautiful home for $200k.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

RichardHeart 10y ago

Hey at least house prices are rising though amirite?

astrostl 10y ago

Income in a vacuum isn't all that useful a metric. What matters more is what you can do with it, leading to what matters most: your actual quality of life. Without feeling compelled to do a deep analysis, taking a 20% hit in exchange for, say, being able to afford broadband and a smartphone/notebook to use it is a deal I'd make all day.