5 ms·

I think the US tradition of leaving next generation better off than the last (whether true or not) is somewhat to blame. There is a societal "failure" to not pr

I think the US tradition of leaving next generation better off than the last (whether true or not) is somewhat to blame. There is a societal "failure" to not providing for your kid the same or better than your parents provided for you. Many millennials are the tipping point for; they got the most, and it's down hill for future generations. The great American pyramid scheme is falling apart or so it seems. I think many people have trouble with that and just tend to throw their hands up as they don't have a solution. I boils down to economics. If these same millenials could afford the lifestyle they want for their kids, they would have kids. Global warming, overpopulation, etc is an altruistic substitute. (Granted things are more expensive, etc, etc. it still holds true.)

minikites 5y ago
>Many millennials are the tipping point Millennials are way worse off than previous generations by many metrics, that's why so many of them are angry. The tipping point already happened.
- conductr 5y ago
  That's essentially what I meant. Millenials are first generation to be effected economically worse than their parents. However, they got the most from their parents in terms of a "nice" upbringing (eg. spoiled). And, they can't afford to spoil kids of their own and it's manifesting as not having kids at all
- agensaequivocum 5y ago
  This is ridiculous. If you look at the totality of the situation, the average person is living an easier more comfortable life than the top 1% 120 years ago.
  - asdff 5y ago
    What, before electricity? How about comparing middle class american with a middle class american from 30 years ago. That's where you see some stratification.
Workaccount2 5y ago
Millennials in their 30's have something crazy like 1/6th the wealth their parents did at the same age.
- kristjansson 5y ago
  The dual of this is that many more millennials have living parents than their parents did at the same age.
  - dlp211 5y ago
    citation needed. I highly doubt that this is true considering my (millenial) grandparents are still alive.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    > The dual of this is that many more millennials have living parents than their parents did at the same age. I dug into some demographics data and I'm almost certain this is false. OP said millennials in their 30s. Life expectancy hasn't increased in the USA that much since the 70s. Even if the deaths were completely distributed among adults, you'd expect people in the 30s now and the 70s to have about the same number of parents alive/dead. More importantly, almost all of the increase is due to improved child mortality. There's a much simpler explanation: Boomers were once-in-a-country's-history lucky. They inherited the spoils of two world wars.
- BrandonM 5y ago
  This cannot be accurate in any absolute sense. How is wealth defined in this context? 25 years ago, the median car and house didn't have (central) A/C. Cell phones and the Internet were expensive and not widely available. Truly portable laptops, usable tablets, and smartphones didn’t exist. Health food options were limited. The world was not mapped for all to access at street level. Translation was far more difficult. Information was less accessible—Wikipedia and Google didn’t exist. Free public preschool (4K) was uncommon. The death rates and crime rates were higher, life expectancy lower. Cash and checks were the primary payment methods. The list goes on and on. Does wealth here refer to an individual’s relative share of contemporaneous wealth? Should the generation that built all of the great technology and systems of the past 25 years not reap the benefits of their work? I’m in my 30s, btw, in case I come across as defensive in this comment. It sounds like my parents’ generation did a better job of building lasting wealth than their parents did (though not my parents lol). Should we find fault in that?

minikites 5y ago

>Many millennials are the tipping point Millennials are way worse off than previous generations by many metrics, that's why so many of them are angry. The tipping point already happened.

conductr 5y ago
That's essentially what I meant. Millenials are first generation to be effected economically worse than their parents. However, they got the most from their parents in terms of a "nice" upbringing (eg. spoiled). And, they can't afford to spoil kids of their own and it's manifesting as not having kids at all
agensaequivocum 5y ago
This is ridiculous. If you look at the totality of the situation, the average person is living an easier more comfortable life than the top 1% 120 years ago.
- asdff 5y ago
  What, before electricity? How about comparing middle class american with a middle class american from 30 years ago. That's where you see some stratification.

Workaccount2 5y ago

Millennials in their 30's have something crazy like 1/6th the wealth their parents did at the same age.

kristjansson 5y ago
The dual of this is that many more millennials have living parents than their parents did at the same age.
- dlp211 5y ago
  citation needed. I highly doubt that this is true considering my (millenial) grandparents are still alive.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  > The dual of this is that many more millennials have living parents than their parents did at the same age. I dug into some demographics data and I'm almost certain this is false. OP said millennials in their 30s. Life expectancy hasn't increased in the USA that much since the 70s. Even if the deaths were completely distributed among adults, you'd expect people in the 30s now and the 70s to have about the same number of parents alive/dead. More importantly, almost all of the increase is due to improved child mortality. There's a much simpler explanation: Boomers were once-in-a-country's-history lucky. They inherited the spoils of two world wars.
BrandonM 5y ago
This cannot be accurate in any absolute sense. How is wealth defined in this context? 25 years ago, the median car and house didn't have (central) A/C. Cell phones and the Internet were expensive and not widely available. Truly portable laptops, usable tablets, and smartphones didn’t exist. Health food options were limited. The world was not mapped for all to access at street level. Translation was far more difficult. Information was less accessible—Wikipedia and Google didn’t exist. Free public preschool (4K) was uncommon. The death rates and crime rates were higher, life expectancy lower. Cash and checks were the primary payment methods. The list goes on and on. Does wealth here refer to an individual’s relative share of contemporaneous wealth? Should the generation that built all of the great technology and systems of the past 25 years not reap the benefits of their work? I’m in my 30s, btw, in case I come across as defensive in this comment. It sounds like my parents’ generation did a better job of building lasting wealth than their parents did (though not my parents lol). Should we find fault in that?