8 ms·

The Grinch Stealing the Future of Gen Y and Z

23 points by danboarder 4y ago

andrewclunn 4y ago
This reads like a partisan screed more than an informative piece of journalism.
- msla 4y ago
  That's certainly nothing new: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1253/yellow-journalism https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1253/yellow-jou... https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/1776-paine-common-sense-pamphlet https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/1776-paine-common-sense-pam...
- abathur 4y ago
  Is the "Institute for New Economic Thinking" some sort of journalistic publication?
browheresmychar 4y ago
It's crazy how we make 10x more money for our companies than our grandparents or parents did but are unable to afford basic lives (wife, house, kids). My dad did it delivering pepsi products.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  You probably could too if you accepted the living standards of the 1960s and lived in a low cost of living area. I know people that happily make some version of that tradeoff, though I wouldn't personally.
  - _dain_ 4y ago
    "Living standards" is such a weaselly term here. Yeah maybe you can afford a dishwasher and a car and nice clothes, but what about when you step outside your door? Being in a city with interesting things to do is an intangible good that many people like, compared to being in a smaller town with fewer amenities (nevermind well-paid jobs). It used to be affordable, now it's expensive. That's a regression no matter how you slice it. Most of the wage growth in big cities goes straight into landlords' pockets. It's no way to run a civilization. And at any rate, you can't even live the 60s life if you wanted to. It's either impossible or illegal.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      I see where you're coming from, but talking to my father-in-law who grew up in Queens in the 60s and he remembers something quite different. The city was a dangerous mess and they never went to Manhattan, they essentially never left Astoria. They didn't take vacations, have A/C, his room was basically a walk in closet with a window, they ate awful food most fo the time, and went to a low cost catholic school. He has nothing romantic or nostalgic to say about it at all. My own parents at the same time were farmers, and I certainly wouldn't want to do what they had to do as children. If you want to stuff 4 people into two bedrooms with no A/C and never take vacations you can do it today in most cities in the US for the wage you'd earn at 1 corporate job. It won't be comfortable, but that isn't new.
      - malandrew 4y ago
        Came here to say the same. The cities boomers grew up with are not the cities of 2022. Most of the interesting things that exist today in cities either didn’t exist for boomers when they were our age or was incredibly scarce and only within the reach of extremely wealthy. If you want the boomer city experience, you need to go pick a city today that compares to a NYC, LA, Miami or SF in the 1960s and 1970s. Nothing like 2022 NYC, LA, Miami or SF existed in the 1960s and 1970s.
        ch4s3 4y ago
        Yeah, for sure. I think people REALLY underestimate how shitty food was in the 60s and 70s too. My mother-in-law told me she didn't really encounter food made with fresh vegetables until the late 80s, and my own father who grew up on a farm told me that he was so sick of mac and cheese and frozen fish sticks by late Winter(when they were running out of preserved food) that he would eat with his eyes closed.
      - steve76 4y ago
        [dead]
    - poulsbohemian 4y ago
      > Being in a city with interesting things to do is an intangible good that many people like, compared to being in a smaller town with fewer amenities (nevermind well-paid jobs). As someone who lives in a small town in the middle of nowhere, I'd argue that the well-paid jobs part is our biggest struggle. We might be somewhat unique compared to some other small towns, but we have a lot going on - theater, live music, civic groups, outdoor recreation, surprisingly good restaurants - there's plenty to do here, but there's also no question that our largest growing demographic group is people who made their money elsewhere. As both you and the poster below you comment though - neither the big city nor small towns offer much of a refuge for people these days; our system is squeezing every bit of "value" out of workers, to our detriment
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  MBAs made profit growth more important than consistent profits. Witness how dividends used to be a sign of a dependable company but now they're for suckers. Everything else broken in the economy is a consequence of this philosophy.
  - kingkongjaffa 4y ago
    If you're not gaining market share from competitors in existing markets, or developing new markets from scratch, then you are not 'winning' under western hyper capitalism.
    - echelon 4y ago
      If you're not growing, your dollar is losing value and competitors are poised to be eating your lunch. Software is the best place to see this. Develop something niche and profitable. Without growth, you're just a feature and you will be ripped off by another party or a bigger player. Slack, Clubhouse, any Mac/iOS feature, etc. etc. Hundreds of examples here. There's also the broader economic theory. If you can only invest time and money in one place, then you have opportunity costs and need to weigh the future outcomes of your investment choices. Life is finite, and you should use it in the best way you know how. For most people, money correlates strongly with value creation and reward. The amount of revenue you drive is also indicative of the broader value you've materialized for other people.
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  It all comes back to housing costs. A generation of Americans pushed restrictive zoning policy so they could inflate the price of their biggest asset. Housing can either be a good investment or affordable, but not both.
  - malandrew 4y ago
    The US population has also grown by over 50% since 1965 or so. That’s a lot more competition for land. The percent of Americans living in urban areas has also grown over time. Together we have more American competing for limited urban real estate. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percent-of-US-Population-living-in-Cities-1790-to-1970-We-include-the-percent-of_fig1_338607779 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percent-of-US-Population...
    - throwaway6734 4y ago
      It's not just urban areas where housing prices have skyrocketed but suburban as well. There's no reason du & tri plexes are illegal in so many suburban areas
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  could this result from the planet not having changed size, but the number of humans being doubled (or whatever)?
- wincy 4y ago
  Okay so let’s say I accept your statement is true and also I’m making good money these days with low expenses. Where should I put my money so I can be one of these people taking advantage of the fact that we’re exploiting workers? Because I’d sure like to become part of this bourgeoise class everyone keeps talking about. Do I just put money into lots of stocks?
- adsfoiu1 4y ago
  Afford a wife? lol? what does that even mean?
- fleddr 4y ago
  The answer is right there in the article: offshoring. Post-war US had close to zero economical competition for a few decades. Which is exactly the time where your grandparents and parents spent most of their adult lives in. Middle class on easy mode, a simple job supports an entire family. What changed is that the rest of the world caught up. Middle class on easy mode was a blip, not a permanent standard. What the west lost, the developing countries gained. There's of course secondary factors too: different demographics (more workers, less elderly), women were not in the work force making labor more scarce, work was more stable and not constantly technically disrupted, etc. It's complicated, but the idea that uneducated labor can support a middle class family is not coming back, ever.
gumby 4y ago
The "trust fund" is simply a paper artifice to support the idea that it's a system you pay into like a private pension. This dates to the original conception of the system, which couldn't be passed into law if it looked like "socialism". In reality it sits on the balance sheet just like everything else in the general fund. It "lends" money to the treasury by buying government debt (those SS payments funded all the highways and other infrastructure in the late 40s, 50s, and 60s0. SS can't go bankrupt any more than the rest of the government could.
jmclnx 4y ago
Well young people, go out and vote. If most gen Y/Z voted they would outvote te older people and maybe they can change things.
- rajangdavis 4y ago
  https://circle.tufts.edu/2022-election-center https://circle.tufts.edu/2022-election-center But they did…
  - culi 4y ago
    27% youth turnout in 2022. It's the second highest in the past 3 decades for a midterm. But midterm turnout overall is usually ~40% It's still extremely low despite breaking records.
- steele 4y ago
  Despite young people voting for the least worst liar, somehow only the older wealth hoarders can afford to campaign for public office. Mystery of mysteries!
- game_the0ry 4y ago
  Politicians usually do not fulfill their campaign promises. That's bc they do not represent their voters, they represent their campaign donors. There is a reason why congressional approval ratings are at an all time low and re-elections rates are at an all-time high, at the same time. No wonder voters, and not just young voters, feel hopeless.
ericmcer 4y ago
It feels like social security should be split into two things: disability for workers pre-retirement, and a Trust fund for retired workers. They are using the first as a justification to plunder the second. If it was just a retirement trust fund it would be ludicrous for the government to handle it in the way they do.
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  The first should be prioritized much more than the second anyways. There's no reason SS is age based and not means based
  - malandrew 4y ago
    That’s not the contract though. I and many others here have been paying in for years with the expectation that I can withdraw at 65. Honestly we should allow people to opt out entirely if they can demonstrate that they are adequately funding their own retirement/disability on their own plan. Social Security as it exists now is a Ponzi scheme.
    - klipklop 4y ago
      Yeah if given a chance I would 100% opt out. Even if it was post tax dollars. I would rather manage my own future.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        Social security is quasi-mandatory minimal insurance against you failing your personal retirement investments (quasi-mandatory because their are a narrow set of employers not required to participate, so you can opt-out by choosing to work for one of them.)
    - throwaway6734 4y ago
      What contract? I'm in my early 30s and when I look at social security, healthcare costs, and housing costs I see the results of older generations shirking their load at the cost of future generations
ramesh31 4y ago
Does anyone under 40 right now seriously expect to be able to collect social security at retirement age? It just seems like a cruel joke at this point.
- tunesmith 4y ago
  Learn more about social security. The worst case scenario is that you'd get roughly 74% of your promised benefit. If Congress intervenes, the outlook will improve. All the arguments are about how much of that shortfall to make up, and how to do it. Aside from some GOP outliers, the broad consensus is that it will continue to exist.
  - drdec 4y ago
    That's really the that for people who will be collecting in 8-10 years. For the under 40 crowd, they don't need it for 25 years and who knows how the demographics will play out then.
    - malandrew 4y ago
      Imagine paying in from age 15 to age 55 and then being told that in 10 years you’re going to 74% of what you’ve been paying for for 40 years. You’re 4/5ths of the way there before the bait and switch.
      - sanderjd 4y ago
        I get the bait and switch feeling, I really do. But in reality that "paying in" is just a tax I've paid, and it's not unusual to get less than I was promised for a tax I've paid. Certainly I desire efficiency for my tax payments, but getting bent out of shape when that doesn't happen is just no way to live.
        Gibbon1 4y ago
        Well Social Security full mane is Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. Imagine paying for car insurance and never seeing a dime back. Some people win, mostly lower income widows that didn't pay in much. And then lived long past retirement. And then you have some single guy that dies in his early 60s.
staringback 4y ago
And yet home ownership rate is higher today than it was at any time between (1965-1997) with an upward trend. If housing was so easily affordable back "then", why didn't everybody buy a house? Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
- magicalist 4y ago
  Note that's the somewhat unintuitive "proportion of households that is owner-occupied". Kids moving back in with their parents after college, for instance, would still count as owner occupied.
  - staringback 4y ago
    Average household sizes are also shrinking and are significantly smaller than 1965: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-h...
- DeRock 4y ago
  It would be interesting to see that metric normalized for average population age. US over time has skewed older (and will continue to do so).
- echelon 4y ago
  People are looking at modern times as if they're worse, when they're almost strictly better than everything that came before us. Far less of the world lives in poverty. People in developed nations have more access to information, entertainment, lifestyle choices, etc. Big media sells fear. Social media amplifies rage. They both create a miasma of doom that isn't reflective of the upward trajectory we've been on and continue to ride. The Boomer era economics were not the norm and comparing ourselves to them is a great deception. Postwar America was growing and factory to the entire world. That was unsustainable and the differential between the US and the rest of the world (especially developing economies in Asia) has diminished. We can't compare Boomer McMansions and low cost of infrastructure and development to our modern state in any sort of fairness. Our wages grew too much, and that's a good thing! (Automation will bring us right back to this recipe anyway, and we're getting there.) Compare America today against the broader world history and you'll see that we're wealthy, growing, and improving by almost all measures.

23 points by danboarder 4y ago

andrewclunn 4y ago

This reads like a partisan screed more than an informative piece of journalism.

msla 4y ago
That's certainly nothing new: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1253/yellow-journalism https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1253/yellow-jou... https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/1776-paine-common-sense-pamphlet https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/1776-paine-common-sense-pam...
abathur 4y ago
Is the "Institute for New Economic Thinking" some sort of journalistic publication?

browheresmychar 4y ago

It's crazy how we make 10x more money for our companies than our grandparents or parents did but are unable to afford basic lives (wife, house, kids). My dad did it delivering pepsi products.

ch4s3 4y ago
You probably could too if you accepted the living standards of the 1960s and lived in a low cost of living area. I know people that happily make some version of that tradeoff, though I wouldn't personally.
- _dain_ 4y ago
  "Living standards" is such a weaselly term here. Yeah maybe you can afford a dishwasher and a car and nice clothes, but what about when you step outside your door? Being in a city with interesting things to do is an intangible good that many people like, compared to being in a smaller town with fewer amenities (nevermind well-paid jobs). It used to be affordable, now it's expensive. That's a regression no matter how you slice it. Most of the wage growth in big cities goes straight into landlords' pockets. It's no way to run a civilization. And at any rate, you can't even live the 60s life if you wanted to. It's either impossible or illegal.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    I see where you're coming from, but talking to my father-in-law who grew up in Queens in the 60s and he remembers something quite different. The city was a dangerous mess and they never went to Manhattan, they essentially never left Astoria. They didn't take vacations, have A/C, his room was basically a walk in closet with a window, they ate awful food most fo the time, and went to a low cost catholic school. He has nothing romantic or nostalgic to say about it at all. My own parents at the same time were farmers, and I certainly wouldn't want to do what they had to do as children. If you want to stuff 4 people into two bedrooms with no A/C and never take vacations you can do it today in most cities in the US for the wage you'd earn at 1 corporate job. It won't be comfortable, but that isn't new.
    - malandrew 4y ago
      Came here to say the same. The cities boomers grew up with are not the cities of 2022. Most of the interesting things that exist today in cities either didn’t exist for boomers when they were our age or was incredibly scarce and only within the reach of extremely wealthy. If you want the boomer city experience, you need to go pick a city today that compares to a NYC, LA, Miami or SF in the 1960s and 1970s. Nothing like 2022 NYC, LA, Miami or SF existed in the 1960s and 1970s.
      - ch4s3 4y ago
        Yeah, for sure. I think people REALLY underestimate how shitty food was in the 60s and 70s too. My mother-in-law told me she didn't really encounter food made with fresh vegetables until the late 80s, and my own father who grew up on a farm told me that he was so sick of mac and cheese and frozen fish sticks by late Winter(when they were running out of preserved food) that he would eat with his eyes closed.
    - steve76 4y ago
      [dead]
  - poulsbohemian 4y ago
    > Being in a city with interesting things to do is an intangible good that many people like, compared to being in a smaller town with fewer amenities (nevermind well-paid jobs). As someone who lives in a small town in the middle of nowhere, I'd argue that the well-paid jobs part is our biggest struggle. We might be somewhat unique compared to some other small towns, but we have a lot going on - theater, live music, civic groups, outdoor recreation, surprisingly good restaurants - there's plenty to do here, but there's also no question that our largest growing demographic group is people who made their money elsewhere. As both you and the poster below you comment though - neither the big city nor small towns offer much of a refuge for people these days; our system is squeezing every bit of "value" out of workers, to our detriment
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
MBAs made profit growth more important than consistent profits. Witness how dividends used to be a sign of a dependable company but now they're for suckers. Everything else broken in the economy is a consequence of this philosophy.
- kingkongjaffa 4y ago
  If you're not gaining market share from competitors in existing markets, or developing new markets from scratch, then you are not 'winning' under western hyper capitalism.
  - echelon 4y ago
    If you're not growing, your dollar is losing value and competitors are poised to be eating your lunch. Software is the best place to see this. Develop something niche and profitable. Without growth, you're just a feature and you will be ripped off by another party or a bigger player. Slack, Clubhouse, any Mac/iOS feature, etc. etc. Hundreds of examples here. There's also the broader economic theory. If you can only invest time and money in one place, then you have opportunity costs and need to weigh the future outcomes of your investment choices. Life is finite, and you should use it in the best way you know how. For most people, money correlates strongly with value creation and reward. The amount of revenue you drive is also indicative of the broader value you've materialized for other people.
throwaway6734 4y ago
It all comes back to housing costs. A generation of Americans pushed restrictive zoning policy so they could inflate the price of their biggest asset. Housing can either be a good investment or affordable, but not both.
- malandrew 4y ago
  The US population has also grown by over 50% since 1965 or so. That’s a lot more competition for land. The percent of Americans living in urban areas has also grown over time. Together we have more American competing for limited urban real estate. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percent-of-US-Population-living-in-Cities-1790-to-1970-We-include-the-percent-of_fig1_338607779 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percent-of-US-Population...
  - throwaway6734 4y ago
    It's not just urban areas where housing prices have skyrocketed but suburban as well. There's no reason du & tri plexes are illegal in so many suburban areas
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jjtheblunt 4y ago
could this result from the planet not having changed size, but the number of humans being doubled (or whatever)?
wincy 4y ago
Okay so let’s say I accept your statement is true and also I’m making good money these days with low expenses. Where should I put my money so I can be one of these people taking advantage of the fact that we’re exploiting workers? Because I’d sure like to become part of this bourgeoise class everyone keeps talking about. Do I just put money into lots of stocks?
adsfoiu1 4y ago
Afford a wife? lol? what does that even mean?
fleddr 4y ago
The answer is right there in the article: offshoring. Post-war US had close to zero economical competition for a few decades. Which is exactly the time where your grandparents and parents spent most of their adult lives in. Middle class on easy mode, a simple job supports an entire family. What changed is that the rest of the world caught up. Middle class on easy mode was a blip, not a permanent standard. What the west lost, the developing countries gained. There's of course secondary factors too: different demographics (more workers, less elderly), women were not in the work force making labor more scarce, work was more stable and not constantly technically disrupted, etc. It's complicated, but the idea that uneducated labor can support a middle class family is not coming back, ever.

gumby 4y ago

The "trust fund" is simply a paper artifice to support the idea that it's a system you pay into like a private pension. This dates to the original conception of the system, which couldn't be passed into law if it looked like "socialism". In reality it sits on the balance sheet just like everything else in the general fund. It "lends" money to the treasury by buying government debt (those SS payments funded all the highways and other infrastructure in the late 40s, 50s, and 60s0. SS can't go bankrupt any more than the rest of the government could.

jmclnx 4y ago

Well young people, go out and vote. If most gen Y/Z voted they would outvote te older people and maybe they can change things.

rajangdavis 4y ago
https://circle.tufts.edu/2022-election-center https://circle.tufts.edu/2022-election-center But they did…
- culi 4y ago
  27% youth turnout in 2022. It's the second highest in the past 3 decades for a midterm. But midterm turnout overall is usually ~40% It's still extremely low despite breaking records.
steele 4y ago
Despite young people voting for the least worst liar, somehow only the older wealth hoarders can afford to campaign for public office. Mystery of mysteries!
game_the0ry 4y ago
Politicians usually do not fulfill their campaign promises. That's bc they do not represent their voters, they represent their campaign donors. There is a reason why congressional approval ratings are at an all time low and re-elections rates are at an all-time high, at the same time. No wonder voters, and not just young voters, feel hopeless.

ericmcer 4y ago

It feels like social security should be split into two things: disability for workers pre-retirement, and a Trust fund for retired workers. They are using the first as a justification to plunder the second. If it was just a retirement trust fund it would be ludicrous for the government to handle it in the way they do.

throwaway6734 4y ago
The first should be prioritized much more than the second anyways. There's no reason SS is age based and not means based
- malandrew 4y ago
  That’s not the contract though. I and many others here have been paying in for years with the expectation that I can withdraw at 65. Honestly we should allow people to opt out entirely if they can demonstrate that they are adequately funding their own retirement/disability on their own plan. Social Security as it exists now is a Ponzi scheme.
  - klipklop 4y ago
    Yeah if given a chance I would 100% opt out. Even if it was post tax dollars. I would rather manage my own future.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      Social security is quasi-mandatory minimal insurance against you failing your personal retirement investments (quasi-mandatory because their are a narrow set of employers not required to participate, so you can opt-out by choosing to work for one of them.)
  - throwaway6734 4y ago
    What contract? I'm in my early 30s and when I look at social security, healthcare costs, and housing costs I see the results of older generations shirking their load at the cost of future generations

ramesh31 4y ago

Does anyone under 40 right now seriously expect to be able to collect social security at retirement age? It just seems like a cruel joke at this point.

tunesmith 4y ago
Learn more about social security. The worst case scenario is that you'd get roughly 74% of your promised benefit. If Congress intervenes, the outlook will improve. All the arguments are about how much of that shortfall to make up, and how to do it. Aside from some GOP outliers, the broad consensus is that it will continue to exist.
- drdec 4y ago
  That's really the that for people who will be collecting in 8-10 years. For the under 40 crowd, they don't need it for 25 years and who knows how the demographics will play out then.
  - malandrew 4y ago
    Imagine paying in from age 15 to age 55 and then being told that in 10 years you’re going to 74% of what you’ve been paying for for 40 years. You’re 4/5ths of the way there before the bait and switch.
    - sanderjd 4y ago
      I get the bait and switch feeling, I really do. But in reality that "paying in" is just a tax I've paid, and it's not unusual to get less than I was promised for a tax I've paid. Certainly I desire efficiency for my tax payments, but getting bent out of shape when that doesn't happen is just no way to live.
      - Gibbon1 4y ago
        Well Social Security full mane is Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. Imagine paying for car insurance and never seeing a dime back. Some people win, mostly lower income widows that didn't pay in much. And then lived long past retirement. And then you have some single guy that dies in his early 60s.

staringback 4y ago

And yet home ownership rate is higher today than it was at any time between (1965-1997) with an upward trend. If housing was so easily affordable back "then", why didn't everybody buy a house? Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

magicalist 4y ago
Note that's the somewhat unintuitive "proportion of households that is owner-occupied". Kids moving back in with their parents after college, for instance, would still count as owner occupied.
- staringback 4y ago
  Average household sizes are also shrinking and are significantly smaller than 1965: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-h...
DeRock 4y ago
It would be interesting to see that metric normalized for average population age. US over time has skewed older (and will continue to do so).
echelon 4y ago
People are looking at modern times as if they're worse, when they're almost strictly better than everything that came before us. Far less of the world lives in poverty. People in developed nations have more access to information, entertainment, lifestyle choices, etc. Big media sells fear. Social media amplifies rage. They both create a miasma of doom that isn't reflective of the upward trajectory we've been on and continue to ride. The Boomer era economics were not the norm and comparing ourselves to them is a great deception. Postwar America was growing and factory to the entire world. That was unsustainable and the differential between the US and the rest of the world (especially developing economies in Asia) has diminished. We can't compare Boomer McMansions and low cost of infrastructure and development to our modern state in any sort of fairness. Our wages grew too much, and that's a good thing! (Automation will bring us right back to this recipe anyway, and we're getting there.) Compare America today against the broader world history and you'll see that we're wealthy, growing, and improving by almost all measures.