7 ms·

The first example is a junior level social worker -- that's fine, but come now: we all know that social work is not a high-paying industry. The second example

by timr 4y ago

The first example is a junior level social worker -- that's fine, but come now: we all know that social work is not a high-paying industry. The second example is a lady with 76k in debt, who has managed to pay down nearly 70% of it. Somehow this doesn't qualify as savings to the author. The third woman actually makes a lot (they won't say how much) and has "achieved financial stability" (thus undermining the thesis of the article), but sends "the majority" of her paychecks to her family. Finally, by the fourth example: someone with three jobs, who still manages to save $200 a month! I do feel for her, though. (Note to author: why in the world would you bury this example??) The fifth example spends on expensive exercise classes and "also likes to go out to dinner with her friends"...but still saves $600 a month. For the very last example, we have a 28-year-old man, earning well below average in NYC (90k a year), who nonetheless saves $2,000 a month. I'm sensing a bias here. This is a ridiculous article. It should be titled: "These 20-somethings mostly manage to save despite difficult life choices and low incomes, and so can you."

fnfjfk 4y ago
Not sure about average in NYC, we have a lot of millionaires that will drag that up, but he’s well above median household income, which is something like $70k.
- timr 4y ago
  I mean, sure. But my point remains: 90k is not even remotely a lot of money in NYC, even if it's above the median. Anyone who manages to save 24k a year on a 90k salary in NYC -- where the median studio apartment will set you back more than 2k a month and coffee and lunch out can easily exceed $20 -- is doing a good job.
  - nivenkos 4y ago
    $90k isn't too bad though. London has similar conditions to that and far fewer people are earning $90k+.
    - timr 4y ago
      It's not bad, but compared to the others he's clearly an outlier in terms of his savings rate.
rcme 4y ago
> The first example is a junior level social worker -- that's fine, but come now: we all know that social work is not a high-paying industry. This is an unfair dismissal. Most industries are not high paying, therefore most workers are not earning enough to save. You're basically saying "they're not saving because they're not earning more!" Also, what is your proposed solution here? To stop having social workers? > someone with three jobs, who still manages to save $200 a month! Saving $200 a month is basically nothing, especially in NYC. It would take multiple years just to save a few months worth of rent.
- timr 4y ago
  I'm not dismissing the person. I'm saying: if the author's purpose is to generalize from this example to all 20-somethings, it's obviously biased. Placing this example first was an editorial decision, and it's designed to elicit sympathy. Imagine if the author had led with the 28-year old NYC resident who saves 2k a month. Also, I just want to add: I'm not engaging you in a debate about whether or not social workers "should" be paid more. I don't run the world.
  - burkaman 4y ago
    $40,000 is an above-average income for a 22-year-old in America. If anything they should have picked someone who made less if they wanted to generalize to all 20-somethings.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Saving $200 a month just means you won't have to go into debt when you need to hire a plumber or auto mechanic or have a very-minor, insured ER visit. [EDIT] Assuming you don't have more than ~2 such urgent expenses per year, that is. And none worse than that.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    I have I think good insurance. It still asks for $350 for an ER visit.
- 4y ago
yamtaddle 4y ago
The article may suck but every dataset I've seen supports the notion that average-net-worth-at-same-age took a sharp dive with Gen X, was even worse for Millennials, and is yet worse than that for Gen Z. IOW each generation has saved less than the Boomers when they were the same age, and the effect's gotten worse with each new generation. Perhaps unsurprisingly—and, maybe even explaining most of the effect—home ownership rates at-same-age, by generation, look pretty similar. More 25-year-old Boomers owned their home, than Gen Xers, than Millennials, than Zers, and there's no later-in-life sharp uptick for those generations that makes up the gap. Worse with each generation.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  And every attempt to fix this buy making housing affordable for younger people is met by extremely angry accusations of entitlement by the generation with the easiest access to wealth and good salaries in history, and spent their entire time on this earth making things shittier for next generations by making homes a for profit endeavor instead of a thing most people need, ignoring global warming and green energy for the enrichment of very few, removing and kneecapping what few social safety nets this country had, and treating people self medicating with drugs as criminals instead of people desperately trying to avoid burnout. So yeah, any advice or claim from these people rings stupidly hollow, especially since they regularly seem to have no fucking clue what these young people are experiencing, because in their time, the minimum wage was enough to buy a medium size house, a small car, and have a family.
- timr 4y ago
  I actually agree with you. The problem is that you're doing a better job of making the case than the NY Times writer, who resorted to citing anecdotes that mostly contradicted the lede and tried to hide that fact.
saiya-jin 4y ago
The whole premise of the article is beyond ridiculous - you are not supposed to be saving in your 20s (which first half is spent on studies for many) but enjoying the life, whatever that means for you! Once responsibilities like parenting and career ladders come into play its too late, there is no going back to that sweet careless freedom. If I had a dollar for every person telling me 'I should have traveled the world more when I was young', that would be quite a sum. Backpacking can be done extremely cheaply in places like India or Nepal, in 2010 I spent roughly 500$/month all costs included there. Was it fancy snobbish type of trip? Heck no, riding on top of buses or cramped inside in fetal position for 12 hours straight next to chickens, eating in local dhabas, and still those were the best moments of my life, 3 months felt like 2-3 decades there. As a bonus such an experience will make you a better person overall, certainly it worked for me. You simply can't get this kind of exposure to the real world in any other way, expensive organized trips certainly don't do same magic.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Alternate view: Early life is the best time to save because of compounding interest. A dollar saved in your 20s has far more lifetime value than a dollar saved in your 30s, 40s or 50s. A year spent horsing around in Nepal "finding yourself" could easily mean having to delay retirement 5 years. I'd rather goof off and enjoy 20 carefree years when I'm old than 4 years when I'm young and have to work until I die.
burkaman 4y ago
This feels a lot like the lectures these people are tired of. "Why didn't you pick a higher-paying career, why did you go to college if you couldn't afford it, why not cut out all unnecessary expenses and stop seeing your friends". Yes, all these people could probably make different choices to save a bit more money, but a) min-maxing life like that sucks, and b) most people constantly giving this advice didn't do that themselves. Is there a single person in America who: 1. At 17 years old ignored every single adult in their life and wisely chose to go to trade school instead of college because their 30-year projections of their own life showed loans might be too much of a burden 2. Stifled all personal ambition and passion and chose a career with the most objective earning potential 3. Cut off all friendships and moved to the lowest cost-of-living area where they could still find a job 4. Lived like an ascetic hermit until they had a large enough emergency fund in the bank The answer is no, this person does not exist, if they did they would be miserable, and nobody wants to live in a world where this lifestyle is necessary for an average person to feel financially comfortable. Edit: Also, when you describe $40,000 as a "low income", are you aware that the median income for a 20-24 year old is less than that?
- timr 4y ago
  I am certain that people who want to read an article with this title are convinced that life has dealt them an unfair hand, and are willing to ignore or dismiss every example to the contrary. ...as this author has almost systematically done. It's not really a "lecture" when I'm just re-stating the facts in the story, is it?
  - burkaman 4y ago
    It's true, if you had only restated the facts it would not have been a lecture.
    - kelnos 4y ago
      ... which is... what they did.
  - happytoexplain 4y ago
meebob 4y ago
The title has two parts, both of which you've provided ample commentary on, but only one explicitly. In Their 20s, Struggling to Save... and Tired of Being Lectured About It. "Ridiculous" and "and so can you" come down on one side of the question of, how should we morally judge people about their savings?
grammers 4y ago
Also: Why would you already want to start saving in your twenties? If you have to pay debts etc, of course, there's nothing left for saving, but it'll work out in the future when the debts are paid.
kelnos 4y ago
> The second example is a lady with 76k in debt, who has managed to pay down nearly 70% of it. Somehow this doesn't qualify as savings to the author. Not only that, but she manages to maintain an emergency fund of $10k. I... think she's doing just fine?
poulsbohemian 4y ago
I think you laid out nicely why I stopped paying attention to both NYT and WaPo. They might be the best newspapers in the country and the "paper of record" but there's way too much of this shaping the story to a desired narrative rather than the facts that happens. It's sad, because there are so many stories out there in the world that need to be told. Each of the examples you gave has way more interesting subject matter - how many young people are supporting family? How did a young person attain financial stability so quickly? How does a young man making well below average manage to save so much? And on and on. But it likely caters to their demographics and/or people buying newspapers (or - whoever paid to submarine this story) to spin that young people today are lazy and not saving. Yawn.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
UtopiaPunk 4y ago
My radical opinion is that social workers should be able to make rent and be able to save for retirement.
- timr 4y ago
  Well, you're more than welcome to employ some!
eyelidlessness 4y ago
> The second example is a lady with 76k in debt, who has managed to pay down nearly 70% of it. Somehow this doesn't qualify as savings to the author. > The third woman actually makes a lot (they won't say how much) and has "achieved financial stability" (thus undermining the thesis of the article), but sends "the majority" of her paychecks to her family. I’m simultaneously thrilled that I could pay 13k in medical bills in a recent family medical crisis, and very well aware that every time I’m able to do that kind of thing I have exactly the same savings of basically fuckall as I’ve always had. I’m similarly thrilled that I was able to pay off all of my outstanding debt after a few months not really recovering from burnout, again with approximately dick in savings. Neither of these achievements I feel bad about, but neither of them give me any kind of security in the sense people mean by “savings”. Granted I’m 40, so I’m just resigned to probably making do until I don’t. So at least I don’t have 20 more years of that understanding to make do with people telling me I’m better off than I am.
anemoiac 4y ago
> For the very last example, we have a 28-year-old man, earning well below average in NYC (90k a year), who nonetheless saves $2,000 a month. I'm sensing a bias here. $90k a year is definitely not "well below average in NYC" - median household income is only $70k a year! (1) 1 - https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newyorkcitynewyork/INC110221#INC110221 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newyorkcitynewy...

by timr 4y ago

fnfjfk 4y ago

Not sure about average in NYC, we have a lot of millionaires that will drag that up, but he’s well above median household income, which is something like $70k.

timr 4y ago
I mean, sure. But my point remains: 90k is not even remotely a lot of money in NYC, even if it's above the median. Anyone who manages to save 24k a year on a 90k salary in NYC -- where the median studio apartment will set you back more than 2k a month and coffee and lunch out can easily exceed $20 -- is doing a good job.
- nivenkos 4y ago
  $90k isn't too bad though. London has similar conditions to that and far fewer people are earning $90k+.
  - timr 4y ago
    It's not bad, but compared to the others he's clearly an outlier in terms of his savings rate.

rcme 4y ago

> The first example is a junior level social worker -- that's fine, but come now: we all know that social work is not a high-paying industry. This is an unfair dismissal. Most industries are not high paying, therefore most workers are not earning enough to save. You're basically saying "they're not saving because they're not earning more!" Also, what is your proposed solution here? To stop having social workers? > someone with three jobs, who still manages to save $200 a month! Saving $200 a month is basically nothing, especially in NYC. It would take multiple years just to save a few months worth of rent.

timr 4y ago
I'm not dismissing the person. I'm saying: if the author's purpose is to generalize from this example to all 20-somethings, it's obviously biased. Placing this example first was an editorial decision, and it's designed to elicit sympathy. Imagine if the author had led with the 28-year old NYC resident who saves 2k a month. Also, I just want to add: I'm not engaging you in a debate about whether or not social workers "should" be paid more. I don't run the world.
- burkaman 4y ago
  $40,000 is an above-average income for a 22-year-old in America. If anything they should have picked someone who made less if they wanted to generalize to all 20-somethings.
yamtaddle 4y ago
Saving $200 a month just means you won't have to go into debt when you need to hire a plumber or auto mechanic or have a very-minor, insured ER visit. [EDIT] Assuming you don't have more than ~2 such urgent expenses per year, that is. And none worse than that.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  I have I think good insurance. It still asks for $350 for an ER visit.
4y ago

yamtaddle 4y ago

The article may suck but every dataset I've seen supports the notion that average-net-worth-at-same-age took a sharp dive with Gen X, was even worse for Millennials, and is yet worse than that for Gen Z. IOW each generation has saved less than the Boomers when they were the same age, and the effect's gotten worse with each new generation. Perhaps unsurprisingly—and, maybe even explaining most of the effect—home ownership rates at-same-age, by generation, look pretty similar. More 25-year-old Boomers owned their home, than Gen Xers, than Millennials, than Zers, and there's no later-in-life sharp uptick for those generations that makes up the gap. Worse with each generation.

mrguyorama 4y ago
And every attempt to fix this buy making housing affordable for younger people is met by extremely angry accusations of entitlement by the generation with the easiest access to wealth and good salaries in history, and spent their entire time on this earth making things shittier for next generations by making homes a for profit endeavor instead of a thing most people need, ignoring global warming and green energy for the enrichment of very few, removing and kneecapping what few social safety nets this country had, and treating people self medicating with drugs as criminals instead of people desperately trying to avoid burnout. So yeah, any advice or claim from these people rings stupidly hollow, especially since they regularly seem to have no fucking clue what these young people are experiencing, because in their time, the minimum wage was enough to buy a medium size house, a small car, and have a family.
timr 4y ago
I actually agree with you. The problem is that you're doing a better job of making the case than the NY Times writer, who resorted to citing anecdotes that mostly contradicted the lede and tried to hide that fact.

saiya-jin 4y ago

The whole premise of the article is beyond ridiculous - you are not supposed to be saving in your 20s (which first half is spent on studies for many) but enjoying the life, whatever that means for you! Once responsibilities like parenting and career ladders come into play its too late, there is no going back to that sweet careless freedom. If I had a dollar for every person telling me 'I should have traveled the world more when I was young', that would be quite a sum. Backpacking can be done extremely cheaply in places like India or Nepal, in 2010 I spent roughly 500$/month all costs included there. Was it fancy snobbish type of trip? Heck no, riding on top of buses or cramped inside in fetal position for 12 hours straight next to chickens, eating in local dhabas, and still those were the best moments of my life, 3 months felt like 2-3 decades there. As a bonus such an experience will make you a better person overall, certainly it worked for me. You simply can't get this kind of exposure to the real world in any other way, expensive organized trips certainly don't do same magic.

ryandrake 4y ago
Alternate view: Early life is the best time to save because of compounding interest. A dollar saved in your 20s has far more lifetime value than a dollar saved in your 30s, 40s or 50s. A year spent horsing around in Nepal "finding yourself" could easily mean having to delay retirement 5 years. I'd rather goof off and enjoy 20 carefree years when I'm old than 4 years when I'm young and have to work until I die.

burkaman 4y ago

This feels a lot like the lectures these people are tired of. "Why didn't you pick a higher-paying career, why did you go to college if you couldn't afford it, why not cut out all unnecessary expenses and stop seeing your friends". Yes, all these people could probably make different choices to save a bit more money, but a) min-maxing life like that sucks, and b) most people constantly giving this advice didn't do that themselves. Is there a single person in America who: 1. At 17 years old ignored every single adult in their life and wisely chose to go to trade school instead of college because their 30-year projections of their own life showed loans might be too much of a burden 2. Stifled all personal ambition and passion and chose a career with the most objective earning potential 3. Cut off all friendships and moved to the lowest cost-of-living area where they could still find a job 4. Lived like an ascetic hermit until they had a large enough emergency fund in the bank The answer is no, this person does not exist, if they did they would be miserable, and nobody wants to live in a world where this lifestyle is necessary for an average person to feel financially comfortable. Edit: Also, when you describe $40,000 as a "low income", are you aware that the median income for a 20-24 year old is less than that?

timr 4y ago
I am certain that people who want to read an article with this title are convinced that life has dealt them an unfair hand, and are willing to ignore or dismiss every example to the contrary. ...as this author has almost systematically done. It's not really a "lecture" when I'm just re-stating the facts in the story, is it?
- burkaman 4y ago
  It's true, if you had only restated the facts it would not have been a lecture.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    ... which is... what they did.
- happytoexplain 4y ago

meebob 4y ago

The title has two parts, both of which you've provided ample commentary on, but only one explicitly. In Their 20s, Struggling to Save... and Tired of Being Lectured About It. "Ridiculous" and "and so can you" come down on one side of the question of, how should we morally judge people about their savings?

grammers 4y ago

Also: Why would you already want to start saving in your twenties? If you have to pay debts etc, of course, there's nothing left for saving, but it'll work out in the future when the debts are paid.

kelnos 4y ago

> The second example is a lady with 76k in debt, who has managed to pay down nearly 70% of it. Somehow this doesn't qualify as savings to the author. Not only that, but she manages to maintain an emergency fund of $10k. I... think she's doing just fine?

poulsbohemian 4y ago

I think you laid out nicely why I stopped paying attention to both NYT and WaPo. They might be the best newspapers in the country and the "paper of record" but there's way too much of this shaping the story to a desired narrative rather than the facts that happens. It's sad, because there are so many stories out there in the world that need to be told. Each of the examples you gave has way more interesting subject matter - how many young people are supporting family? How did a young person attain financial stability so quickly? How does a young man making well below average manage to save so much? And on and on. But it likely caters to their demographics and/or people buying newspapers (or - whoever paid to submarine this story) to spin that young people today are lazy and not saving. Yawn.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

UtopiaPunk 4y ago

My radical opinion is that social workers should be able to make rent and be able to save for retirement.

timr 4y ago
Well, you're more than welcome to employ some!

eyelidlessness 4y ago

> The second example is a lady with 76k in debt, who has managed to pay down nearly 70% of it. Somehow this doesn't qualify as savings to the author. > The third woman actually makes a lot (they won't say how much) and has "achieved financial stability" (thus undermining the thesis of the article), but sends "the majority" of her paychecks to her family. I’m simultaneously thrilled that I could pay 13k in medical bills in a recent family medical crisis, and very well aware that every time I’m able to do that kind of thing I have exactly the same savings of basically fuckall as I’ve always had. I’m similarly thrilled that I was able to pay off all of my outstanding debt after a few months not really recovering from burnout, again with approximately dick in savings. Neither of these achievements I feel bad about, but neither of them give me any kind of security in the sense people mean by “savings”. Granted I’m 40, so I’m just resigned to probably making do until I don’t. So at least I don’t have 20 more years of that understanding to make do with people telling me I’m better off than I am.

anemoiac 4y ago

> For the very last example, we have a 28-year-old man, earning well below average in NYC (90k a year), who nonetheless saves $2,000 a month. I'm sensing a bias here. $90k a year is definitely not "well below average in NYC" - median household income is only $70k a year! (1) 1 - https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newyorkcitynewyork/INC110221#INC110221 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newyorkcitynewy...