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.
Maybe 10%-20% of the graduating class left the area. Some weren't "from the area" in the first place and would have never stayed. Some of those were the high achievers who became "coastal elite."
Of those who stayed and went to college, many struggled for years after the Great Recession. I graduated in 2010, and didn't have a "career track" job until I was 2014, and that required moves from TN to the Midwest back to TN then back to the Midwest to get. Even then, there was some struggle as I got into a bad job and was likely to be fired, but found something before I was.
Unless you're in medical (or do some kind of work for the regional health system), work for Eastman Chemical, or some aspect of local government, it's unlikely most Millennials here will make over $40,000. Keep in mind median HHI here is mid $30k - low $40k range depending on the town.
I'm a millennial from a medium-sized city in the midwest (Saint Louis). Some of my friends went to college, some didn't but I can't think of any that aren't doing well today. Some of those that didn't go to college are car salesmen, many are in the trades (flooring, linesmen, electrician, plumbers, etc.) but I would guess all are clearing at least $50k+ in the Saint Louis area, combine that with a spouse in that income range and you have a $100k+ HH income.
Hmm, let me see. The link I provided has the actual numbers from historical data; of course, these numbers come from US govt, so they should be taken with a huge grain of salt, since US govt wants to draw rosy picture. But even that "rosy" picture shows huge decline - in real terms.
And your statement is based on... what, exactly? Wishful thinking? Cause I don't see any link to your source.
I didn't see a link to actual data. All I saw was a link to some 3rd rate personal blog that has nothing to do with economics called https://www.thesimpledollar.com/about/ . Was there some other link I missed?
Even in the depths of the Great Recession 10 years ago, adults who graduated from at least high school, had a job, and were both at least age 21 and married before having children had only about a 2 percent chance of living in poverty and a better than 70 percent chance of making the middle class — defined as $65,000 or more in household income. People who did not meet any of these factors had a 77 percent chance of living in poverty and a 4 percent chance of making the middle class (or higher).
The above things -- not dropping out of high school, and not having babies until after marriage -- are largely under the control of individual people. Just doing those simple things helps a person's chance for financial success. In fact, analysis of the data show that if the same share of over-18 year olds were married today as were married in 1970, poverty would be reduced by more than 25% percent.
Median house price in 1970: $23,600
Median house price in 2016: $327,000
These are again in actual, current, non-adjusted dollars.
(They don't have average house prices for 1970, hence median is used; but average and median are not far off each other in that table anyway).
So, average income went 8.3 times higher.
Average house price went 13.8 times higher.
In another words, in 1970 house cost you 2.3 times your income. In 2019 house costs you 3.93 times your income.
Same applies to other big tickets - health care and education.
Also, pay attention that income above is for household. In 1970 most of the time it was one person working in a household - wife was usually stay-at-home. In 2016 most of the time there two people working in a household - and they still can't get to the level of 1970 living.
Any more questions? And, as expected, no apology from you. Why I'm not surprised?
You can continue to be blind and push your agenda, but US govt does not agree with you.
P.S. I've got tired to provide actual numbers while you provide just blah-blah. No more numbers from me anymore, since there is no point - you are not going to listen, and don't even understand the numbers that you see. Oh, well, carry on.
1. Trust me I do listen. As it's possible I misread or conflated some of your points with those of others I'll reread your posts above tonight and report back.
2. Trust me too that I understand this stuff really well.
The units noted in my chart are CPI.......PPI is an entirely different animal.
CPI absolutely does track healthcare, including insurance, and has for many years.
CPI does track rents and importantly urban rents. The "gap" between home prices and rents does ebb and flow but it's not much different now than in 2000.
The average home built in 1970 was ~53% smaller than today. About 50% of 1970 homes had central heat and air - today that number is roughly 90%. The average 1970 also home had fewer bathrooms and was less likely to have pool etc. The 1970 home probably lacked GFCI and did lack ARC Fault protection and on and on. Point being comparing item prices over time without careful analysis can lead to weak conclusions.
Relatedly, since 1970 millions and millions of people (somewhere around 30 million) have moved from rural areas to the burbs and cities. Those who bought homes paid more.
Your claim that one worker households were the norm in 1970 but not now is belied by the fact that The Labor Force Participation Rate in 1970 was ~60.4% last month it was was 62.8%.
Median house price in 1970: $23,600
Median house price in 2016: $327,000
These are again in actual, current, non-adjusted dollars.
(They don't have average house prices for 1970, hence median is used; but average and median are not far off each other in that table anyway).
So, average income went 8.3 times higher.
Average house price went 13.8 times higher.
In another words, in 1970 house cost you 2.3 times your income. In 2019 house costs you 3.93 times your income.
The analysis above ignores the inflationary aspects of price because of the extremely low mortgage rate environment we are in. For a majority of people it is not necessarily how much the house costs but what the monthly payment is.
In 1970, an 80% mortgage ($18.8k) on that $23.6k house at 8.5% (average rate for 1970) is $145/mth.
In 2017, an 80% mortgage ($261.6k) on that $327k house at 4% (average rate for 2017) is $1247/mth.
the 2017 mortgage is 8.6 times more expensive than the 1970 mortgage, where the annual household income is 8.3 times greater. So yes the value of the house has appreciated more but the mortgage carrying costs are in line with what they were in 1970.
So, you're saying that most boomers won't have houses to pass on to their children?
The house will be sold to pay for end of life care. Medicaid will want to be paid back, and as soon as I'm not living here any more they will take it. When I die they will take it. So much for inheritance.
It's actually shown that many older millennial are overtaking or on the track of overtaking these Gen Xers in the corporate ladder.
Only about 17% of workers in the US ever see a corporate ladder. 60% of all jobs are provided by small businesses, and only a fraction of large business employees are management.
But considering healthcare is way more expensive now compared to the late 80s and early 90s....
Is it?
Did you factor in new technology?
Did you factor in new pharmaceuticals introduced since then?
Did you factor in higher success/cure/recovery rates?
I guess you didn't.
The technology today allows for discovery of illnesses/diseases that went undetected in the 1980s/1990s and allows for discovery at far earlier times in development, which makes treatments more effective.
Obviously, you're not a woman, because technology allows for discovery of breast cancer far earlier, instead of the technology in the 1980s/1990s which detected it at Stage 3 or 4, which meant you went home to die.
In another words, in 1970 house cost you 2.3 times your income. In 2019 house costs you 3.93 times your income.
I forgot to mention that your failed analysis doesn't take into account the fact that houses in 2019 are significantly larger than 1970.
And, houses in 1970 did not come with a 2- or 3-car garage.
In fact, many houses in 1970 didn't come with a garage at all...they came with a car port, which is not a garage.
When you consider the fact that houses today are 1,000+ square feet larger in real living space than in 1970, and you factor in the 2- or 3-car garage, you're actually paying less.
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.
