Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/series/millennials-the-trials-of-generation-y?CMP=fb_us]Millennials: the trials of Generation Y | The Guardian[/url]
The separation between me and Gen Y is a matter of months, not years, but I connect very, very little to most any of it... the information in here seems somewhat accurate, but also somewhat young, whinny, hipster... but definitely not me.
Especially the finance stuff... and that's what I wanted to ask you guy, especially the older folks here.
The article makes a graph showing that these young millennials have less money than people 65+ as if it were a bad thing... now it is NOT comparing what these 65+ earned when they were in their 20's or 30's, instead the Guardian is making a direct comparison (unless it does, but I just haven't had my coffee yet) ... which seems way out of context and inappropriate... between wealth accumulation of these generations. I would really, really hope (and expect) someone born in 1945 to have vastly more assets than someone born in 1995.
Yes, the way it's written seems to imply Millennials have reason to be ticked.
I'd like a more thorough analysis using inflation corrected data across all the "generations". Retired Boomers certainly have more assets and yeah, SS has the purpose of keeping people out of poverty! I'm not quite ready to transfer ALL my money to Millennials...but yes, I do pay taxes so there's that!
It makes the following assertion:
1. Disposable income has fallen/continues to fall
2. Employment/Quality of employment is falling.
3. Disproportionate rise in housing cost
4. Disproportionate rise in education cost
And similar assertions are made by all articles on the issue. So it goes beyond just comparing gen-Y in come with retiree income.
In America, of course, this is a big political debate, ie. the decimation of the working-middle class.
Here is how I see it.
The standard of living for approximately a billion or more people has risen in India-China and the rest of south-east asia over the last 2-3 decades. This, to some degree, is made possible by the massive difference in living standards in the west and east, and by the arbitrage of labor cost. It stands to reason that this has led to the erosion of wages of a vast spectrum of jobs.
Millennials in the west have had to contend with the rise of Asia.
The separation between me and Gen Y is a matter of months, not years, but I connect very, very little to most any of it... the information in here seems somewhat accurate, but also somewhat young, whinny, hipster... but definitely not me.
Especially the finance stuff... and that's what I wanted to ask you guy, especially the older folks here.
The article makes a graph showing that these young millennials have less money than people 65+ as if it were a bad thing... now it is NOT comparing what these 65+ earned when they were in their 20's or 30's, instead the Guardian is making a direct comparison (unless it does, but I just haven't had my coffee yet) ... which seems way out of context and inappropriate... between wealth accumulation of these generations. I would really, really hope (and expect) someone born in 1945 to have vastly more assets than someone born in 1995.
Compared to the national average, you are poorer than most people of your age in the past. In real terms, your disposable income is about $1,274 more than in 1979.
Yeah! Wait. I'm poorer because in real terms I, the hypothetical average 25-29-year-old, have more disposable income than the hypothetical average 25-29-year-old did in 1979? Even after I don't have a job and have a mountain of student loan debt.
I'm actually in the 30-34 group now, which is almost exactly the same as it has been compared with the overall greater standard of living we have today. The big loser is the 20-24 group. I can sympathize there. A lot of the jobs like burger flipping and retail are now being worked by lifers so they're not available and now there's the $15/hr stuff because they are lifer rather than just part-time jobs for spending money or while in college. Others they've made harder to get. Eg, as a teenager and in college I worked as a pharm tech. Now you need to be licensed which isn't difficult (I was later on). You do need to have a GED/high school graduate and pass a simple test though. Still, that was my first job. Not really a barrier to entry for the 20-24 crowd but I didn't graduate high school until 18 at which point I'd been working as a pharm tech for two years. That was the early 2000s (graduated high school in 2003) and even then getting those burger flipping or grocery store bagger jobs was difficult. It's not the first job I applied for, just the first one I got.
Basically the 20-24 group is the only one that's actually gotten poorer. Everyone else is doing better. Millenial stuff tends to be more focused on the young adult 18-25 group. It's been that way forever. When I was in that group, that's the group it focused on as well. Made sense then as focusing on the 12-year-olds wouldn't really have much purpose. Basically nowadays there's less opportunity for the least skilled workers, which largely is your 20-25-year-olds. It's harder to get work experience. Good news is by 30-34 it doesn't really matter. Nothing new either. Same thing for younger Gen X.
It makes the following assertion:
1. Disposable income has fallen/continues to fall
2. Employment/Quality of employment is falling.
3. Disproportionate rise in housing cost
4. Disproportionate rise in education cost
And similar assertions are made by all articles on the issue. So it goes beyond just comparing gen-Y in come with retiree income.
In America, of course, this is a big political debate, ie. the decimation of the working-middle class.
Here is how I see it.
The standard of living for approximately a billion or more people has risen in India-China and the rest of south-east asia over the last 2-3 decades. This, to some degree, is made possible by the massive difference in living standards in the west and east, and by the arbitrage of labor cost. It stands to reason that this has led to the erosion of wages of a vast spectrum of jobs.
Millennials in the west have had to contend with the rise of Asia.
1) Is not true for any group except 20-24. For all other groups over the duration it's risen.
I didn't specifically see 2-4, but to the extent it's captured in #1, again, all groups have higher real disposable income outside the 20-24 group today. Basically it's not true. If employment/quality is falling, housing is more expensive, and school is more expensive disposable income would reflect that. You do have around 30% of 18-34-year-olds living at home versus 23% in 1980. I don't think that's enough to account for the $1,200/$3,000 higher disposable income of 25-29/30-34 groups though. Basically I'd say 2-4 cannot be true given the higher disposable income.
You can look at things individually and tell more though. For example, right now rents are rising which is market driven. Lots of factors rent was flat from 2008-2013, so partly it's that, partly it's reduced home ownership meaning more people looking to rent. Home ownership declining from 69 to the current 64 is fairly pronounced as that then needs to be absorbed by the smaller rental pool. There wasn't much housing being built. There's a misalignment of housing. You have lots of economic boom areas where there's severe shortages in housing, Bay Area in my backyard being one of the biggest but certainly not the only one. The relative oversupply to the extent it existed of housing out in San Joaquin County (mostly gone now as Bay Area commuters have moved in making it now officially part of the Bay Area) is an imperfect relief valve in that it's one hell of a commute. Rising sticker price isn't relevant. At all. Taking the UC system while the tuition has increased by more than 50% since 2008, it's actually cheaper to attend for anyone coming from a family making less than $110k/yr today than it was in 2008. Private universities play the same game even more so. A big sticker price looks impressive, which is good. It actually looks better to list a $50,000 tuition than a $15,000 one, especially when you follow it up with the $35,000 school grant. Generally the only people paying $50,000 are the ones they don't really want. Basically some rich kid of an alumnus with crappy grades and low test scores pays full tuition.
nearly all of these comparisons where the author makes it seem like older generations/people have it better have no idea what survivorship bias is... and yet they want to give economic comparisons...
Quote:
Millennials in the west have had to contend with the rise of Asia.
immigrants aren't new... nothing's really changed except that "millennials" no longer compete if they can't "win", they just give up
immigrants aren't new... nothing's really changed except that "millennials" no longer compete if they can't "win", they just give up
I don't think that's particularly new, either. In any generation, most don't compete if they can't win. That's being completely rational.
I'm a late-Boomer. I can remember saying in the 1980's that life was unfair and I would never be able to afford the home I grew up in. Then the S&L meltdown happened and real estate crashed. I owned a condo where I got slaughtered but I was able to buy a house way better than the one I grew up in in 1997 (my late-30's) before the real estate market took off.
I think every generation ends up thinking the same thing. Their first decade or so working, they're on the outside looking in. A few decades into their work career, they're in their prime earnings years and their tune changes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
