What the researchers do find is that millennials—who they define as Americans born between 1981 and 1997—are relatively broke. The average net worth—assets, minus debts—of a young adult household in 2016 was 20 percent less than baby boomer households in 1989 and 40 percent less than Gen X households in 2001. The deficit is driven in large part the by the fact that millennials are much less likely to own homes and much more likely to have student debt. (It’s also in keeping with another Federal Reserve study from this year showing that millennials are trailing far behind previous generations on wealth accumulation, even though they have comparable savings habits.) Income is a somewhat more complicated picture, but after controlling for age, education, demographics, and other factors, the paper finds millennials who work full-time earn less than boomers and Gen X did. It’s really not a stretch to call this generation overeducated and underpaid.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I can totally attest to this. Spent most of my 20's living paycheck to paycheck, even with a masters degree. Nobody wanted to hire or promote young people, and damn sure nobody wanted to actually *pay* anything. Of all my pals through high school and college, and looking at people in my social circle now in their late 20's to mid/late 30's, almost nobody owns a home, and those that do typically had major assistance from parents. Lots of pals from college are still living in places where there's 4 of them sharing a rented house.

Fun fact, at a previous employer, our ceo/president decided that our flagship software product didnt need a project manager, he literally just didnt want to pay a salary for the position so just made the other project managers do it. I was qualified and inerviewed along with a dozen other people, they just didnt want to pay someone. Needless to say, the product suffered, and management couldn't figure out why.

My opinion of Boomers in management roles is...not high from my experience in the workplace.

 Overread wrote:
Thing is Baby boomers bought a lot of properties and still hold onto them for the rent. On the flipside there's also been a lot of instability in the job market so many younger people don't even want to hold onto a property because the next job could be hours or even at the other end of the country. All that conspired to make a very lucrative rental market. Of course once someone has a few rental properties its not until they die and death duty taxes kick in that they are often forced to sell them.

 Overread wrote:
Grimskul I know several uni lecturers who are annoyed that they are basically teaching academic courses and can't adapt the structure to be more career focused. They realise that they've got to branch out, but its so heavily established and I think academia is just easier to mark, grade and put into league tables that its sort of stuck.

IT does mean that many who leave uni systems can research and write essays; but they often have a poor understanding and little to no skills (barring the 1 or 2 they used for their dissertation) to actually go into the working world.

It is a system stuck in the past at many places; back when it was geared for academics and the number of people who went to uni was FAR fewer and, if not elite, it was at least more selective and limited.

Don't get me wrong its great that everyone now has the opportunity, but its also devalued it in the world and also made it something it shouldn't be. Going from an extra to almost a required standard for many places

 Grimskul wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Grimskul I know several uni lecturers who are annoyed that they are basically teaching academic courses and can't adapt the structure to be more career focused. They realise that they've got to branch out, but its so heavily established and I think academia is just easier to mark, grade and put into league tables that its sort of stuck.

IT does mean that many who leave uni systems can research and write essays; but they often have a poor understanding and little to no skills (barring the 1 or 2 they used for their dissertation) to actually go into the working world.

It is a system stuck in the past at many places; back when it was geared for academics and the number of people who went to uni was FAR fewer and, if not elite, it was at least more selective and limited.

Don't get me wrong its great that everyone now has the opportunity, but its also devalued it in the world and also made it something it shouldn't be. Going from an extra to almost a required standard for many places

For sure, and it sucks since I did have a great time at uni, but as you said, due to it being so widely available now, it's the standard expectation to have a bachelor's degree and you need a lot more specialism or hands-on experience to even warrant getting noticed in the field you're interested in. Currently, I'm deciding whether or not I should go to college just to get training for Early Childhood Education or Adult Education since I want to go into student advising, which to me feels a little extra given that I've already finished a bachelor's degree.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
No no, it is because we are lazy or because we hate capitalism! OR IT IS BECAUSE WE HATE MURICA!

Definitely not because we are broke. Capitalism would never do that to us! ALL HAIL CAPITALISM!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
My favorite part is how millennials are blamed for the participation trophy thing as though they somehow game them to themselves.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
My favorite part is how millennials are blamed for the participation trophy thing as though they somehow game them to themselves.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
And the thing is... They didn't even mean anything to us. We'd all get these participation trophies or medals or whatnot but we looked around, saw that everyone got them, and knew they weren't worth anything. Maybe my social group was a unique case but I doubt it; even elementary school students are sharp enough to understand that if everyone gets it there's no achievement involved. So the previous generation fabricates the entire thing, and it's our fault.

Jokes on them; the debt crisis is looming and the biggest expense on the chopping block is social security & the like. We'll see who's entitled when baby boomers aren't getting their welfare.

Overread wrote:Grimskul I know several uni lecturers who are annoyed that they are basically teaching academic courses and can't adapt the structure to be more career focused. They realise that they've got to branch out, but its so heavily established and I think academia is just easier to mark, grade and put into league tables that its sort of stuck.

IT does mean that many who leave uni systems can research and write essays; but they often have a poor understanding and little to no skills (barring the 1 or 2 they used for their dissertation) to actually go into the working world.

It is a system stuck in the past at many places; back when it was geared for academics and the number of people who went to uni was FAR fewer and, if not elite, it was at least more selective and limited.

Don't get me wrong its great that everyone now has the opportunity, but its also devalued it in the world and also made it something it shouldn't be. Going from an extra to almost a required standard for many places

nfe wrote:

Overread wrote:Grimskul I know several uni lecturers who are annoyed that they are basically teaching academic courses and can't adapt the structure to be more career focused. They realise that they've got to branch out, but its so heavily established and I think academia is just easier to mark, grade and put into league tables that its sort of stuck.

IT does mean that many who leave uni systems can research and write essays; but they often have a poor understanding and little to no skills (barring the 1 or 2 they used for their dissertation) to actually go into the working world.

It is a system stuck in the past at many places; back when it was geared for academics and the number of people who went to uni was FAR fewer and, if not elite, it was at least more selective and limited.

Don't get me wrong its great that everyone now has the opportunity, but its also devalued it in the world and also made it something it shouldn't be. Going from an extra to almost a required standard for many places

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here. Do you think university courses should be geared more towards vocational employment? If so I disagree completely.

As someone teaching in a university, I think we should be far, far more expliciltly academic in everything other than clear vocational courses that require university level education like medicine or law. We need to completely upturn the popular assumption that university is there to get you jobs. It absolutely is not. Employability is a side-effect. If we could get that across then we'd get far better students, far fewer businesses would expect applicants to have tertiary education, and far fewer people who's priority is their employability would waste their time with university and crack on with trying to build a career.

The idea that university is meant to get you into work is killing universities.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Jokes on them; the debt crisis is looming and the biggest expense on the chopping block is social security & the like. We'll see who's entitled when baby boomers aren't getting their welfare.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Jokes on them; the debt crisis is looming and the biggest expense on the chopping block is social security & the like. We'll see who's entitled when baby boomers aren't getting their welfare.

Ha! You know they're just going to write the laws so that they still get their stuff but younger people don't. It's what our government did here in the UK with regards to university tuition fees. A load of older people, who all had free university education paid for by the state, decided the country could no longer afford to do so and young people must pay for it whilst giving those young people loans whose conditions can be arbitrarily changed at any time by the government to pay for the education all those people got for free.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Another issue in america that people in more civilized countries may not understand is today many if not most employers demand an applicant sign an ""agreement"" that basically stripes them of all legal protections and rights in event the company abuses them. You are forces to ""agree"" (Yes, double quote marks around ""agreeing"" to this.) to forfeiot your rights to legally sue the company for abuse or injury and instead go thru a rigged, one sided arbitration process that pretty much inevitably fasvors the company.

Techpriestsupport wrote:Then why are american workers routineky forced to allow employers access to their Facebook pages or face being fired/not hired and unable to sue over it?

BobtheInquisitor wrote:Why would you expect millennials to buy fewer homes than the boomers who already mostly have their homes? Besides the percentage of homebuyers who are millennials is not indicative of the percentage of millennials who are home buyers.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
they've also got to cope with spending money on goods and services the previous generation didn't, internet, mobile phones, tv services etc,

and with social media (amongst other things) pressuring them feel the need to take more, and more expensive holidays

they also tend to feel that once they get a new home they have to rebuild about half of it, plus fit it out with brand new furniture, bathroom and kitchen whereas previously when you bought a new house you lived with it as it was (maybe fixing a leaking roof) rather than rearranging walls, and furnished it with castoffs from family, friends and second hand shops

 Overread wrote:
Ah but are they buying up much? Ergo they might be the largest % purchasing but are they buying large volumes of properties or is it just that everyone else has slowed down faster.

Of course regional variation is going to come into play here, the UK has a much bigger housing issue than the USA I would wager - esp since the UK has more significant limitations on suitable building space.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
That just seems like an odd generalisation regarding the renovating thing? What are you basing that off? It’s not a trend I’ve noticed.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I

Edit: also, Millenials are this point are no longer kids, as a society we need to start mentally autocorrecting "millenials" to "adults under 40" to put these things in better context

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


not true mate. . . SCOTUS has normally and regularly sided with workers where issues of personal rights and pre-existing law is concerned. You literally cannot sign away your rights.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Jokes on them; the debt crisis is looming and the biggest expense on the chopping block is social security & the like. We'll see who's entitled when baby boomers aren't getting their welfare.

Ha! You know they're just going to write the laws so that they still get their stuff but younger people don't. It's what our government did here in the UK with regards to university tuition fees. A load of older people, who all had free university education paid for by the state, decided the country could no longer afford to do so and young people must pay for it whilst giving those young people loans whose conditions can be arbitrarily changed at any time by the government to pay for the education all those people got for free.

 godardc wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I

Edit: also, Millenials are this point are no longer kids, as a society we need to start mentally autocorrecting "millenials" to "adults under 40" to put these things in better context

How time flies: I needed to read it to believe it, but damn, you are right !

I think it is the same everywhere. What is even more annoying is baby boomers telling how hard it was for them and how they managed to get everything and how lazy people are these days....

About the holidays thing, I read a paper once that talked about it telling basically that because they couldn't afford to buy a house, to invest, they use their money an other way: travelling

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think the point is people simply aren’t investing because they don’t see the point if even after sacrificing they aren’t going to get anything meaningful out of it. Money that in days gone by might have gone in to paying off a mortgage these days might end up going in to travel.

Though I think that’s an overly simplistic generalisation, I’d like to see the actual evidence that kids these days spend a greater portion of their money travelling than kids of days gone by. Flying internationally is a lot cheaper than it used to be, and if you pick your countries right it doesn’t cost a hell of a lot.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:Then why are american workers routineky forced to allow employers access to their Facebook pages or face being fired/not hired and unable to sue over it?

Because you weren't mentioning FB and social media. . . you said RIGHTS.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


I don't doubt you have major housing issues in the UK, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the UK, isn't the housing issue a number of available units? Here in the US, the usually discussed aspect of housing problems is price.

 Overread wrote:
And yet there's another sting which is that many employers often won't look at CVs unless there is "some degree" on there in some form. Even for staff moving up within the company there's been many passed over in favour of an inexperienced person who has a degree.

ValentineGames wrote:
Kids today are broke?...that's a strange way of saying "pampered self centered spoiled uneducated undisciplined little donkey-caves"

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:Then why are american workers routineky forced to allow employers access to their Facebook pages or face being fired/not hired and unable to sue over it?

Because you weren't mentioning FB and social media. . . you said RIGHTS.

Ok, how about the right to tell someone what you share with family and fiends is none of their damn business?

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think the point is people simply aren’t investing because they don’t see the point if even after sacrificing they aren’t going to get anything meaningful out of it. Money that in days gone by might have gone in to paying off a mortgage these days might end up going in to travel.

Though I think that’s an overly simplistic generalisation, I’d like to see the actual evidence that kids these days spend a greater portion of their money travelling than kids of days gone by. Flying internationally is a lot cheaper than it used to be, and if you pick your countries right it doesn’t cost a hell of a lot.

As a filthy millennial myself (1991) I notice a major sense of jaded indifference when it comes to things like investment or house buying, even among friends who are mainly upbeat. Other than the odd guy who gets his rocks off to penny stocks or magic cards, there really is this sense of "why bother, it could crash tomorrow and I'd lose everything." And that's if you have the money to invest to begin with, often people would rather just finish off their loans than trying to invest and hope they get lucky

 Da Boss wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Kids today are broke?...that's a strange way of saying "pampered self centered spoiled uneducated undisciplined little donkey-caves"

Oh wow, how original.

The inequality between generations is just a wider aspect of the gross inequality in all aspects of modern life. Eventually, something will break.

Which is ironic when you think about how polarised we are with our politics now. We've lost the ability to see others views, consider and debate with civility, and that's sad.

 Ghool wrote:
I think the issue extends beyond just one generation being broke.
I'm a Gen Xer and don't own a house and have been looking for a low paying job for over 5 months. I have a degree, experience, and skills. I haven't had a single call back.

This is more of an issue of how corporatized the world has become and less of a generational issue.

Unless you have parental help, or got lucky, you don't own a house. I'm 46 and everyone my age that I know was only able to purchase a house because their parents helped them.

This is more about the entire world economy and how it's circling the drain. Something has to give or change before it will get better.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:Then why are american workers routineky forced to allow employers access to their Facebook pages or face being fired/not hired and unable to sue over it?

Because you weren't mentioning FB and social media. . . you said RIGHTS.

Ok, how about the right to tell someone what you share with family and fiends is none of their damn business?

That's not a human right. The simple fact of Facebook is that it you have one people, and employers are going to want to look at it. It's part of the reason I deleted mine (something I highly recommend to anyone who may be considering it.)


.

 ScarletRose wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Kids today are broke?...that's a strange way of saying "pampered self centered spoiled uneducated undisciplined little donkey-caves"

Oh wow, how original.

The inequality between generations is just a wider aspect of the gross inequality in all aspects of modern life. Eventually, something will break.

It's almost like the systematic movement of wealth into fewer and fewer hands has consequences...

Or you know, "them kids are just lazy" I guess

--

Which is ironic when you think about how polarised we are with our politics now. We've lost the ability to see others views, consider and debate with civility, and that's sad.

When the debate is between genocide and not-genocide it's hard to take a "see both sides" approach.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
they've also got to cope with spending money on goods and services the previous generation didn't, internet, mobile phones, tv services etc,

and with social media (amongst other things) pressuring them feel the need to take more, and more expensive holidays

they also tend to feel that once they get a new home they have to rebuild about half of it, plus fit it out with brand new furniture, bathroom and kitchen whereas previously when you bought a new house you lived with it as it was (maybe fixing a leaking roof) rather than rearranging walls, and furnished it with castoffs from family, friends and second hand shops

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Ghool wrote:
I think the issue extends beyond just one generation being broke.
I'm a Gen Xer and don't own a house and have been looking for a low paying job for over 5 months. I have a degree, experience, and skills. I haven't had a single call back.

This is more of an issue of how corporatized the world has become and less of a generational issue.

Unless you have parental help, or got lucky, you don't own a house. I'm 46 and everyone my age that I know was only able to purchase a house because their parents helped them.

This is more about the entire world economy and how it's circling the drain. Something has to give or change before it will get better.

Valid point. If anything the focusing of wealth to the hands of the rich can be seen as the root of the problem. The only social class that has always been parasitic to the society it is a part of, it should be no surprise that when the parasite gets fatter the rest of the body suffers.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Ghool wrote:
I think the issue extends beyond just one generation being broke.
I'm a Gen Xer and don't own a house and have been looking for a low paying job for over 5 months. I have a degree, experience, and skills. I haven't had a single call back.

This is more of an issue of how corporatized the world has become and less of a generational issue.

Unless you have parental help, or got lucky, you don't own a house. I'm 46 and everyone my age that I know was only able to purchase a house because their parents helped them.

This is more about the entire world economy and how it's circling the drain. Something has to give or change before it will get better.

Valid point. If anything the focusing of wealth to the hands of the rich can be seen as the root of the problem. The only social class that has always been parasitic to the society it is a part of, it should be no surprise that when the parasite gets fatter the rest of the body suffers.

Yes comrade, now you are talking sense! If our society is to advance further, if our aim is to continue improving living standards for people, then first the parasites must be dealt with. Peacefully, of course. There is a lot of ways in which governments could start to gradually re-distribute wealth. Currently, the 8 wealthiest people are as wealthy as half of the entire world population put together. That is something that is simply not acceptable. It puts a massive drain on Human development.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
they've also got to cope with spending money on goods and services the previous generation didn't, internet, mobile phones, tv services etc,

and with social media (amongst other things) pressuring them feel the need to take more, and more expensive holidays

they also tend to feel that once they get a new home they have to rebuild about half of it, plus fit it out with brand new furniture, bathroom and kitchen whereas previously when you bought a new house you lived with it as it was (maybe fixing a leaking roof) rather than rearranging walls, and furnished it with castoffs from family, friends and second hand shops

Let's also not forget that the average home today is more than twice the size of the average home in the 1960's. People expect more today, and getting more means you pay more. I once tried to help a friend find a new place after she broke up with her boyfriend (he dumped her, and for reasons I could understand, but hey she's a friend, so.....). She wanted to live alone, but turned her nose up at studio apartments, basement apartments, anything not in the "right" part of town, and any place that looked like a converted house. She then complained that nothing she wanted was in her price range. I had to remind her of the old "beggars can't be choosers" line, and that she either had to settle, get a roommate, or start selling her body on a corner.


I'm meeting many people these days that refuse to consider the philosophy of "it's not exactly what I want, but the price makes it right". Heck, if I was a single guy I'd consider a little 800 square foot house with a small detached garage. It's still be more than I need.

 cuda1179 wrote:

I'm meeting many people these days that refuse to consider the philosophy of "it's not exactly what I want, but the price makes it right". Heck, if I was a single guy I'd consider a little 800 square foot house with a small detached garage. It's still be more than I need.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm meeting many people these days that refuse to consider the philosophy of "it's not exactly what I want, but the price makes it right". Heck, if I was a single guy I'd consider a little 800 square foot house with a small detached garage. It's still be more than I need.

ValentineGames wrote:
Kids today are broke?...that's a strange way of saying "pampered self centered spoiled uneducated undisciplined little donkey-caves"

 Overread wrote:
One of the worst bits about job seeking is how many companies don't reply or only ever reply with a very basic rejection and no constructive feedback. Because most of the time you either just were outdone by someone more experienced or there wasn't anything wrong there were just so many names in the hat and you didn't get the lucky draw. It's demoralizing because at least if you do something wrong you can work and improve on it for next time at the next job. Whilst if you appear to be doing it all right and still failing it builds a significant amount of frustration

Voss wrote:

 Overread wrote:
One of the worst bits about job seeking is how many companies don't reply or only ever reply with a very basic rejection and no constructive feedback. Because most of the time you either just were outdone by someone more experienced or there wasn't anything wrong there were just so many names in the hat and you didn't get the lucky draw. It's demoralizing because at least if you do something wrong you can work and improve on it for next time at the next job. Whilst if you appear to be doing it all right and still failing it builds a significant amount of frustration

It's even worse if you're more aware of the process (a consequence of dipping in and out of government employment for far too long). A lot of times, companies/agencies don't even hire someone else. They didn't get the candidate pool they wanted (or it turned out they didn't have the funding they thought they had coming) so they just cancelled the job search, and will post it again in a couple months.

I got really annoyed when I realized that some of the jobs I was applying for I'd applied for 3 or even 4 times in the past year. It annoyed me even more since I was more than qualified based on the criteria they listed.

The other side of the coin is the absurd level of specialist knowledge requested. My current job isn't great, so I keep an eye out. I saw one last week that was a junior position (actually doing the job, no supervising minions, with several layers above), and they wanted 15 years of experience. 15! For work I'd been doing years ago as an intern, and in the field for years after that.

My personal favorite was an archivist job at college in California. They wanted a fully qualified archivist, with education, years of experience and.... also an 'Arabian Horse Specialist.' As in, an expert on the animal. What is this I don't even. I'd be willing to bet you'd find those particular skill sets crossed over basically never.

 Vulcan wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Kids today are broke?...that's a strange way of saying "pampered self centered spoiled uneducated undisciplined little donkey-caves"

I'm guessing you came to this thread and hit 'post reply' without actually reading a single thing that was posted before.

Actually read the thread, and then come back and say something intelligent, lest we believe this is the best you can do.

nfe wrote:

In almost all of London it's well beyond the reaches of the average millennial*. I presume it's also laughable to many in NYC, Sydney, Tel Aviv and other notoriously expensive cities. All places where the boomer generation could get mortgages as single young persons on average incomes.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
To get a good paying job you need experience in a low paying job, for which you need experience in an unpaid internship, for which you need a degree, for which you need to go into debt for, debt which cannot be paid off until you get to the first item on the list.

Or be born rich, inherit a bunch of stocks, earn money for having money, and pay less taxes on that income to boot.

Pink Horror wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
To get a good paying job you need experience in a low paying job, for which you need experience in an unpaid internship, for which you need a degree, for which you need to go into debt for, debt which cannot be paid off until you get to the first item on the list.

Or be born rich, inherit a bunch of stocks, earn money for having money, and pay less taxes on that income to boot.

I am a millennial. I was born poor - as in parents with multiple part-time jobs and sometimes unemployed poor. I was disabled in high school and dropped out before finishing. I didn't get out of that situation and go to college until years later. I don't even think the college I eventually graduated from is accredited. Still, I never did an internship or went into debt. I have a "good" job... well, not really a job I like, but I can afford the house and car and taking care of my wife, and possible future children. My sister, who had a similar childhood and went to the same crappy college also has a decent job and a house. My brothers are screw-ups, but that's on them. I work with a bunch of people my age or younger who are almost certainly doing at least as well as I am. It's the same for the people I know from high school. In my little bubble, underemployed millenials don't exist.

Sometimes I wonder if all of these opinion pieces about millennials just come from the ones who had to live in a place like New York City or London instead of out in middle America or some other place like that. I've worked in Manhattan. I am very glad to be out of that urban rat race now. Yes, it's not good how our society caters to the rich, and how income equality keeps growing, and how companies are allowed to treat jobseekers, but it's still hard for me to accept how any individual underemployed millennial couldn't do something about it.

 Overread wrote:
I think one thing to consider is that many people don't get good financial eduction at all. I notice that kids who had parents who were financially well educated are often doing a lot better today even without parental help.

Meanwhile those who had parents who just sort of muddle through their finances, come off a lot worse.

It's not just balancing the basic income VS expenditure; its knowing all the little tricks, the investment ideas and even appreciating things like investment and saving.


It seems daft, but schools make almost no effort to properly teach finances. Something that is critical to life and yet features almost not a bit, at least when I went through school. Sure you can add and take away, but the nature of haggling for better utility prices; how to manage investments, what different kinds of investments there are; how to pay your taxes effectively; what to look for in investment potential etc.... All things that could be viable and important concepts are just not taught.
Someone earlier siad many are not saving because they see no potential and that's true; but I think its also because they don't also understand how best to save in the first place.

 Henry wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm meeting many people these days that refuse to consider the philosophy of "it's not exactly what I want, but the price makes it right". Heck, if I was a single guy I'd consider a little 800 square foot house with a small detached garage. It's still be more than I need.

Little? That's an average family of five size house in the UK. I'm single, earn nearly double the national wage and have a lodger. I just about managed to buy my 1000 sq ft, no garage, garden only big enough for a shed to store a small motorbike, house. And that was after fifteen years of careful saving thanks to being in the mob, so accommodation and food was cheap and I was able to save up. And because the price was rediculously low because the selling family had special concerns.

There's no way I'd have a house if I was married with kids, or had a normal job.

800 ft with a garage? That would sound like paradise to most families. They'd worship the ground you walked upon if you offered them that deal. And you, as a hypothetical single guy, would "consider" it?


Put it this way.... you've just belittled what, to many of these people, would be an aspirational fantasy. And you've shrugged it off as something you'd settle for if push came to shove. Not as a hope, or a dream, or a prospect that seems so far out of reach that it's barely worth considering - but as something you might consider, maybe, but probably not really because it's beneath you. That's pretty tone deaf.

 Henry wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm meeting many people these days that refuse to consider the philosophy of "it's not exactly what I want, but the price makes it right". Heck, if I was a single guy I'd consider a little 800 square foot house with a small detached garage. It's still be more than I need.

Little? That's an average family of five size house in the UK. I'm single, earn nearly double the national wage and have a lodger. I just about managed to buy my 1000 sq ft, no garage, garden only big enough for a shed to store a small motorbike, house. And that was after fifteen years of careful saving thanks to being in the mob, so accommodation and food was cheap and I was able to save up. And because the price was rediculously low because the selling family had special concerns.

There's no way I'd have a house if I was married with kids, or had a normal job.

800 ft with a garage? That would sound like paradise to most families. They'd worship the ground you walked upon if you offered them that deal. And you, as a hypothetical single guy, would "consider" it?


Put it this way.... you've just belittled what, to many of these people, would be an aspirational fantasy. And you've shrugged it off as something you'd settle for if push came to shove. Not as a hope, or a dream, or a prospect that seems so far out of reach that it's barely worth considering - but as something you might consider, maybe, but probably not really because it's beneath you. That's pretty tone deaf.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


being in the forces is the best thing I ever did for my financial situation. it gave me huge opportunities to save decent amounts of money. Nowadays its not as good, as they started slashing the commitment bonuses and expenses. the shame is that you see so many servicemen/women waste all that opportunity and end up in debt same as those who didnt join up. I was lucky to get all the full commitment bonuses before they canned them.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Henry wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm meeting many people these days that refuse to consider the philosophy of "it's not exactly what I want, but the price makes it right". Heck, if I was a single guy I'd consider a little 800 square foot house with a small detached garage. It's still be more than I need.

Little? That's an average family of five size house in the UK. I'm single, earn nearly double the national wage and have a lodger. I just about managed to buy my 1000 sq ft, no garage, garden only big enough for a shed to store a small motorbike, house. And that was after fifteen years of careful saving thanks to being in the mob, so accommodation and food was cheap and I was able to save up. And because the price was rediculously low because the selling family had special concerns.

There's no way I'd have a house if I was married with kids, or had a normal job.

800 ft with a garage? That would sound like paradise to most families. They'd worship the ground you walked upon if you offered them that deal. And you, as a hypothetical single guy, would "consider" it?


Put it this way.... you've just belittled what, to many of these people, would be an aspirational fantasy. And you've shrugged it off as something you'd settle for if push came to shove. Not as a hope, or a dream, or a prospect that seems so far out of reach that it's barely worth considering - but as something you might consider, maybe, but probably not really because it's beneath you. That's pretty tone deaf.

Weird, I must be living in the last non-screwed place on the face of the Earth. I'm in the target demographic of this topic. I'm literally the first of my friends to get married, first to have kids. My wife didn't go to college. I went to college, but abandoned my chosen career for something that doesn't require a college degree. I make a decent living, but still less than what others have listed in this thread, yet I still have enough for a 2700 square foot home that will have its 30-year mortgage paid off in less than 23 years. All this and I still have enough money to contribute to an IRA, have a ridiculously large 40k collection, built a custom hotrod car, have more guns than the National Guard, and tinker with combat robotics.

It's not like I'm an outlier in this either. One of my friends grew up being dirt-poor. In the last 15 years he's been through a lot including costly divorce, yet is still a home owner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just looked this up. In my area you can buy a 1/4 acre plot of land, and have a new, small pre-fabricated home built on it for under $80,000.

I guess it kind of helps when there is a pre-fab manufacturer in the area.

 Henry wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


being in the forces is the best thing I ever did for my financial situation. it gave me huge opportunities to save decent amounts of money. Nowadays its not as good, as they started slashing the commitment bonuses and expenses. the shame is that you see so many servicemen/women waste all that opportunity and end up in debt same as those who didnt join up. I was lucky to get all the full commitment bonuses before they canned them.

Another thing that doesn't get mentioned is the pensions. They've torn them to pieces. I'm lucky that I acquired fifteen years of pension75, with my remaining years on pension15. I'm on to a good deal, I know that. For the kids today it's not worth the effort. I tell them either go full career and retire at 55 or get in, get the education and qualifications, then get the hell out as soon as they can.

I'm a tail-end gen-X / early millennial and I'm looking at the kids of today with sympathy.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Henry wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm meeting many people these days that refuse to consider the philosophy of "it's not exactly what I want, but the price makes it right". Heck, if I was a single guy I'd consider a little 800 square foot house with a small detached garage. It's still be more than I need.

Little? That's an average family of five size house in the UK. I'm single, earn nearly double the national wage and have a lodger. I just about managed to buy my 1000 sq ft, no garage, garden only big enough for a shed to store a small motorbike, house. And that was after fifteen years of careful saving thanks to being in the mob, so accommodation and food was cheap and I was able to save up. And because the price was rediculously low because the selling family had special concerns.

There's no way I'd have a house if I was married with kids, or had a normal job.

800 ft with a garage? That would sound like paradise to most families. They'd worship the ground you walked upon if you offered them that deal. And you, as a hypothetical single guy, would "consider" it?


Put it this way.... you've just belittled what, to many of these people, would be an aspirational fantasy. And you've shrugged it off as something you'd settle for if push came to shove. Not as a hope, or a dream, or a prospect that seems so far out of reach that it's barely worth considering - but as something you might consider, maybe, but probably not really because it's beneath you. That's pretty tone deaf.

Weird, I must be living in the last non-screwed place on the face of the Earth. I'm in the target demographic of this topic. I'm literally the first of my friends to get married, first to have kids. My wife didn't go to college. I went to college, but abandoned my chosen career for something that doesn't require a college degree. I make a decent living, but still less than what others have listed in this thread, yet I still have enough for a 2700 square foot home that will have its 30-year mortgage paid off in less than 23 years. All this and I still have enough money to contribute to an IRA, have a ridiculously large 40k collection, built a custom hotrod car, have more guns than the National Guard, and tinker with combat robotics.

It's not like I'm an outlier in this either. One of my friends grew up being dirt-poor. In the last 15 years he's been through a lot including costly divorce, yet is still a home owner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just looked this up. In my area you can buy a 1/4 acre plot of land, and have a new, small pre-fabricated home built on it for under $80,000.

I guess it kind of helps when there is a pre-fab manufacturer in the area.

I don’t think things are as bad as far as housing is concerned in the US for people who can get a half decent job outside a major city. Smaller towns/cities in the US seemed to me to have better job opportunities than small towns out here where things seem to be centralised in a handful of big cities.

It seemed to me the problem with the US was more people on the bottom of the totem pole, whereas over here the middle class is pretty screwed, and by pretty screwed I mean able to live comfortably but unable to afford to buy a house and if they don’t own a big portion of their money goes to rent rather than savings. I’m constantly considering moving back to the US because there’s decent engineering jobs in smaller towns/cities where I’ll make a similar amount of money as I do out here, but will also be able to afford a house and a corvette.

When I was temporarily living in the US I felt like buying a house because I was amazed how cheap something within 20 minutes drive of a decent town centre cost A few years of paying a mortgage rather than rent in the town I was living and you could have paid off a decent house (not a mansion or anything, but something you could raise a family in, have a shed out the back and a garage).

Crispy78 wrote:
OK, for comparison - I live in the affluent South-East of England, between the cities of Southampton and Winchester. By US standards probably counts as being in the suburbs of both of them.

Our house is apparently 2142 sqft, which is pretty big by UK standards but sounds like not especially so by US standards. Our neighbours are all very affluent, we have a project manager, an ex financial director, a GP, and a pair of senior air traffic controllers.

We bought our house around 4 years ago for £560k. And we certainly don't have a quarter of an acre of land...

Crispy78 wrote:
OK, for comparison - I live in the affluent South-East of England, between the cities of Southampton and Winchester. By US standards probably counts as being in the suburbs of both of them.

Our house is apparently 2142 sqft, which is pretty big by UK standards but sounds like not especially so by US standards. Our neighbours are all very affluent, we have a project manager, an ex financial director, a GP, and a pair of senior air traffic controllers.

We bought our house around 4 years ago for £560k. And we certainly don't have a quarter of an acre of land...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
To be clear; no one is saying that -no- millenials met with financial success, or were able to make things work. Obviously some did.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
OK, for comparison - I live in the affluent South-East of England, between the cities of Southampton and Winchester. By US standards probably counts as being in the suburbs of both of them.

Our house is apparently 2142 sqft, which is pretty big by UK standards but sounds like not especially so by US standards. Our neighbours are all very affluent, we have a project manager, an ex financial director, a GP, and a pair of senior air traffic controllers.

We bought our house around 4 years ago for £560k. And we certainly don't have a quarter of an acre of land...

2100 sq ft. isn't small by US standards, I'd personally rate it at around "average" . . . Not as in, mean median and mode average, but by our standards it's not especially big, but its not very small either.


One thing to consider in these discussions is that while people like Cuda are talking about acres of land and manufactured homes/trailers for $80k, in a LOT of the country that isn't feasible, or where it is, you're talking about the sticks. The "norm" for my area you're looking at $250k minimum. . . and you have choices: a bit of land with "not so great" house (wife's co-worker just did this), or "pretty good" house with not so much land (as I did, 2400 sq. ft. on 0.1 acre in an HOA plot) . . . But in my area that quarter million price tag is starting to become a floor/basement price as values continue to rise, and inventory continues to be fairly low. I'm seeing a lot of housing available in that 2200-3000 sq. ft. range that starts at 275k. . . with quite a bit of new construction tracts that are in the low 300k range. which seems to be around the national averages.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I think one thing to consider is that many people don't get good financial eduction at all. I notice that kids who had parents who were financially well educated are often doing a lot better today even without parental help.

Meanwhile those who had parents who just sort of muddle through their finances, come off a lot worse.

It's not just balancing the basic income VS expenditure; its knowing all the little tricks, the investment ideas and even appreciating things like investment and saving.


It seems daft, but schools make almost no effort to properly teach finances. Something that is critical to life and yet features almost not a bit, at least when I went through school. Sure you can add and take away, but the nature of haggling for better utility prices; how to manage investments, what different kinds of investments there are; how to pay your taxes effectively; what to look for in investment potential etc.... All things that could be viable and important concepts are just not taught.
Someone earlier siad many are not saving because they see no potential and that's true; but I think its also because they don't also understand how best to save in the first place.

This. I was very lucky that my old man was incredibly smart with money and made lots of good investments in his early adulthood. he was able to help me get on the property ladder (although I did save a large portion of my own income to contribute) And set me up with an investment portfolio ISA which gives much better interest returns.

 Overread wrote:
I think one thing to consider is that many people don't get good financial eduction at all. I notice that kids who had parents who were financially well educated are often doing a lot better today even without parental help.

Meanwhile those who had parents who just sort of muddle through their finances, come off a lot worse.

It's not just balancing the basic income VS expenditure; its knowing all the little tricks, the investment ideas and even appreciating things like investment and saving.

It seems daft, but schools make almost no effort to properly teach finances. Something that is critical to life and yet features almost not a bit, at least when I went through school. Sure you can add and take away, but the nature of haggling for better utility prices; how to manage investments, what different kinds of investments there are; how to pay your taxes effectively; what to look for in investment potential etc.... All things that could be viable and important concepts are just not taught.
Someone earlier siad many are not saving because they see no potential and that's true; but I think its also because they don't also understand how best to save in the first place.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
well yeah, theyre not going to give you the means to do it yourself are they.. that's just bad business. Personally I'm happy to pay a percentage to have someone who knows do it for me as I have no idea.

 Henry wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


being in the forces is the best thing I ever did for my financial situation. it gave me huge opportunities to save decent amounts of money. Nowadays its not as good, as they started slashing the commitment bonuses and expenses. the shame is that you see so many servicemen/women waste all that opportunity and end up in debt same as those who didnt join up. I was lucky to get all the full commitment bonuses before they canned them.

Another thing that doesn't get mentioned is the pensions. They've torn them to pieces. I'm lucky that I acquired fifteen years of pension75, with my remaining years on pension15. I'm on to a good deal, I know that. For the kids today it's not worth the effort. I tell them either go full career and retire at 55 or get in, get the education and qualifications, then get the hell out as soon as they can.

I'm a tail-end gen-X / early millennial and I'm looking at the kids of today with sympathy.

 Overread wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
well yeah, theyre not going to give you the means to do it yourself are they.. that's just bad business. Personally I'm happy to pay a percentage to have someone who knows do it for me as I have no idea.

Aye but we aren't talking the top end tricks here, we are talking at the most basic end of the chart. Asides a fair bit of investment requires quite a bit of time to keep on top of, so for many people it is indeed easier and more profitable to have an investor spend all day doing that whilst they do their regular life and work.

I think if government were serious about solving problems such as the debt crisis then they'd start at school with a significant investment in proper financial teaching. And by proper I mean more than a few hours at the end of their school years, I mean a proper full lesson and teaching plan that is conducted over several years with proper repetition of information to ensure it is actually taught and not just told (there's a lot of life-skills in school that is told but not taught - mostly because its tick-box style and doesn't feature an exam which contributes to the all-powerful league tables)

 Ghool wrote:
For those of you in the US touting how easy and cheap it is to buy a house, don't assume it's that way everywhere. Americans are very lucky to have such a cheap housing market.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I'm considering doing a PhD just to get paid a reasonable amount doing something I actually want to do but I don't really want to be a student into my mid-twenties.

 cuda1179 wrote:

BTW, I wasn't talking a trailer. There are actually some fairly decent pre-fab homes out there where you'd never tell unless you knew it before hand. It's actually quite fun to see a truck pull up with all the walls in bundles, and see the framing of a house go up in a couple days.

 Ghool wrote:
Wow US housing is cheap!
To buy the house I live in right now, built in 1978 and requiring about 30k in renos to get it back up to code, and 800 Sq ft. can easily be sold for 300k+.
Of which, I have to provide a minimum 10% down payment.

We have savings and put money every month into it for the past 4 years and we're 1/8 of the way towards that down payment.
Couple this with at least $2k+ a month just in rent and utilities, and one can see how difficult it can be to do anything without luck or major assistance.

For those of you in the US touting how easy and cheap it is to buy a house, don't assume it's that way everywhere. Americans are very lucky to have such a cheap housing market.

nfe wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I'm considering doing a PhD just to get paid a reasonable amount doing something I actually want to do but I don't really want to be a student into my mid-twenties.

Do not, under any circumstances, do a PhD unless you really want to do the specific project. It will be a horrible experience if you're not enthusiastic about it - even people who love what they're doing tend to find it utterly tedious towards the end. And it'll be on a low income to boot (if you even get full funding and a stipend, which are very competitive).

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The general opinion among millenials is that being an adult is stressful, overbearing, and ultimately gakky.

As a sidenote, I gave up on aspirations of buying my own property a long time ago. You can't afford it so put the money into something else. Most of my social circle has no plans to buy housing and will instead just wait 20-30 years until they inherit it. No plans to have kids either.

Added bonus: the world climate is going down the drain and the generation that cause it also denies it's existence. Joke is once again on them though; it's the property they own that stands to be devastated.

 Overread wrote:
I think one thing to consider is that many people don't get good financial eduction at all. I notice that kids who had parents who were financially well educated are often doing a lot better today even without parental help.

Meanwhile those who had parents who just sort of muddle through their finances, come off a lot worse.

It's not just balancing the basic income VS expenditure; its knowing all the little tricks, the investment ideas and even appreciating things like investment and saving.


It seems daft, but schools make almost no effort to properly teach finances. Something that is critical to life and yet features almost not a bit, at least when I went through school. Sure you can add and take away, but the nature of haggling for better utility prices; how to manage investments, what different kinds of investments there are; how to pay your taxes effectively; what to look for in investment potential etc.... All things that could be viable and important concepts are just not taught.
Someone earlier siad many are not saving because they see no potential and that's true; but I think its also because they don't also understand how best to save in the first place.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I think one thing to consider is that many people don't get good financial eduction at all. I notice that kids who had parents who were financially well educated are often doing a lot better today even without parental help.

Meanwhile those who had parents who just sort of muddle through their finances, come off a lot worse.

It's not just balancing the basic income VS expenditure; its knowing all the little tricks, the investment ideas and even appreciating things like investment and saving.


It seems daft, but schools make almost no effort to properly teach finances. Something that is critical to life and yet features almost not a bit, at least when I went through school. Sure you can add and take away, but the nature of haggling for better utility prices; how to manage investments, what different kinds of investments there are; how to pay your taxes effectively; what to look for in investment potential etc.... All things that could be viable and important concepts are just not taught.
Someone earlier siad many are not saving because they see no potential and that's true; but I think its also because they don't also understand how best to save in the first place.

Yeah. Schools should be mandated to teach a personal finance class to students by the time they leave High School. Stuff like how to make a budget, file a tax return, how interest works on loans/credit cards, etc...

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I think one thing to consider is that many people don't get good financial eduction at all. I notice that kids who had parents who were financially well educated are often doing a lot better today even without parental help.

Meanwhile those who had parents who just sort of muddle through their finances, come off a lot worse.

It's not just balancing the basic income VS expenditure; its knowing all the little tricks, the investment ideas and even appreciating things like investment and saving.


It seems daft, but schools make almost no effort to properly teach finances. Something that is critical to life and yet features almost not a bit, at least when I went through school. Sure you can add and take away, but the nature of haggling for better utility prices; how to manage investments, what different kinds of investments there are; how to pay your taxes effectively; what to look for in investment potential etc.... All things that could be viable and important concepts are just not taught.
Someone earlier siad many are not saving because they see no potential and that's true; but I think its also because they don't also understand how best to save in the first place.

Yeah. Schools should be mandated to teach a personal finance class to students by the time they leave High School. Stuff like how to make a budget, file a tax return, how interest works on loans/credit cards, etc...

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
One very important thing schools should teach is advertising awareness and resistance. They won't of course because business leaders don't want that.

 Overread wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah. Schools should be mandated to teach a personal finance class to students by the time they leave High School. Stuff like how to make a budget, file a tax return, how interest works on loans/credit cards, etc...

Life skills should be something taught each year to students and should build year on year with key skills needed in life. Changing a plug head; cooking; basic medical and first aid (why are students not mandated to do first aid courses and pass them?) ; basic home finance; basic home management. These are all skills that, one might argue, parents should teach their kids; however not every parent knows these things well either; nor are they all good teachers. At least in a school environment a minimum standard can be established with a known quantity of learning provided.

The one thing that bucks the trend for modern kids is mobile phones - I'd wager that's at least one area where kids today are getting more general awareness of contracts and "finding a good deal" and of annual contract renewals than many previous generations ever did.

 Steve steveson wrote:
$250k usd is about £200k

I give you what you can buy around me:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-68098225.html

2 bed ground floor flat.

Herbington wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
$250k usd is about £200k

I give you what you can buy around me:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-68098225.html

2 bed ground floor flat.

This is a mile away from me:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-57549135.html

If it was a mile in the opposite direction, it'd be well over £250k

My now-wife and I intentionally bought a house that was way below what the banks were willing to give us a mortgage for (something like up to £450k). For two reasons, it meant we could cover it if either of us were made redundant, and, we really like going on holiday!

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
OK, for comparison - I live in the affluent South-East of England, between the cities of Southampton and Winchester. By US standards probably counts as being in the suburbs of both of them.

Our house is apparently 2142 sqft, which is pretty big by UK standards but sounds like not especially so by US standards. Our neighbours are all very affluent, we have a project manager, an ex financial director, a GP, and a pair of senior air traffic controllers.

We bought our house around 4 years ago for £560k. And we certainly don't have a quarter of an acre of land...

2100 sq ft. isn't small by US standards, I'd personally rate it at around "average" . . . Not as in, mean median and mode average, but by our standards it's not especially big, but its not very small either.


One thing to consider in these discussions is that while people like Cuda are talking about acres of land and manufactured homes/trailers for $80k, in a LOT of the country that isn't feasible, or where it is, you're talking about the sticks. The "norm" for my area you're looking at $250k minimum. . . and you have choices: a bit of land with "not so great" house (wife's co-worker just did this), or "pretty good" house with not so much land (as I did, 2400 sq. ft. on 0.1 acre in an HOA plot) . . . But in my area that quarter million price tag is starting to become a floor/basement price as values continue to rise, and inventory continues to be fairly low. I'm seeing a lot of housing available in that 2200-3000 sq. ft. range that starts at 275k. . . with quite a bit of new construction tracts that are in the low 300k range. which seems to be around the national averages.

Man, I knew that housing prices were much higher in other areas, just not that bad. We also have slightly lower wages here. I guess I just misunderstood exactly how disproportionate the wage to home value is in other areas.

BTW, I wasn't talking a trailer. There are actually some fairly decent pre-fab homes out there where you'd never tell unless you knew it before hand. It's actually quite fun to see a truck pull up with all the walls in bundles, and see the framing of a house go up in a couple days.

 LordofHats wrote:


For me at least, these skills were taught in school.

Problem is that no one takes "Home Economics" seriously, and jokes about it being a class for girls to learn "womun's workz."

cuda1179 wrote:What does a $250,000 home for sale look like in your area? If anyone wants to post a link to a realtor's website that would work great.

 War Drone wrote:
@Mario: I kind of agree with you, but ... a lot obviously depends on where you're "willing" to live, surely?

After bottoming out in 2011, incomes are rising for American households – and those headed by a Millennial (someone age 22 to 37) now earn more than young adult households did at nearly any time in the past 50 years, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new census data.

 Easy E wrote:
At the headline, Pew Research Center seems to have some conflicting census data: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/11/young-adult-households-are-earning-more-than-most-older-americans-did-at-the-same-age/

However, they are going by Millennial Household Income and not actual Net Worth like the Fed.

After bottoming out in 2011, incomes are rising for American households – and those headed by a Millennial (someone age 22 to 37) now earn more than young adult households did at nearly any time in the past 50 years, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new census data.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
No, but you can blame them for denying those incentives to anyone else once they've had the benefit.

 Forar wrote:
According to a cursory google search, including my annual bonus I'm making at or slightly above an average salary wage for the city. I have the luxury of walking to work, and while I could shave some of the cost of living down by moving further out, that often gets offset by the cost of transit (let alone car payments/gas/parking if I went that route) and the extra hours spent commuting each day. I have coworkers that have to get up around 6:30 to be in the office for 9, whereas I don't even roll out of bed until 8, and get in around 9 as well.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I don't think the baby boomers deserve all the hate they're currently getting.

https://artplusmarketing.com/the-real-reason-baby-boomers-and-millennials-dont-see-eye-to-eye-written-by-a-millennial-5c7dfb15fe05

My Dad is a very early Boomer, born in 49. He's worked his knuckles to the bone,(literally on one of his middle fingers) to provide for us. nothing was given to him, he didnt have it easy. He took advantage of having a fairly financial savvy, and now owns multiple property investments and his own business. he cares nothing for material wealth. It was to ensure we had a safety net as we worked through early adulthood.

I don't think its fair to heap resentment on folks who only acted through a desire to help their children, and blame them for our problems.

Its the everlasting cycle. the youngsters blame their parents, who in turn chastise them for their decreasing morals. that sort of thinking doesnt get us anywhere.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I don't think the baby boomers deserve all the hate they're currently getting.

https://artplusmarketing.com/the-real-reason-baby-boomers-and-millennials-dont-see-eye-to-eye-written-by-a-millennial-5c7dfb15fe05

My Dad is a very early Boomer, born in 49. He's worked his knuckles to the bone,(literally on one of his middle fingers) to provide for us. nothing was given to him, he didnt have it easy. He took advantage of having a fairly financial savvy, and now owns multiple property investments and his own business. he cares nothing for material wealth. It was to ensure we had a safety net as we worked through early adulthood.

I don't think its fair to heap resentment on folks who only acted through a desire to help their children, and blame them for our problems.

Its the everlasting cycle. the youngsters blame their parents, who in turn chastise them for their decreasing morals. that sort of thinking doesnt get us anywhere.

 gorgon wrote:


Playing devil's advocate here...so you could potentially afford something. It just wouldn't be your ideal situation and lifestyle.

 John Prins wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


Playing devil's advocate here...so you could potentially afford something. It just wouldn't be your ideal situation and lifestyle.

When someone says they can't afford housing, it generally means within a reasonable radius of their workplace. I live an hour's commute outside of Toronto and houses in my area are 500K CAD minimum, you have to go another hour out to find stuff in the 200-300K range. Four hour daily commutes aren't reasonable - yes, some people do it, but it's not reasonable and it takes a huge toll on people.

 gorgon wrote:


Again playing devil's advocate...so you could potentially afford something. It just wouldn't be your ideal location.

 LordofHats wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


Again playing devil's advocate...so you could potentially afford something. It just wouldn't be your ideal location.

I feel like you're kind of trivializing the absurdity of spending 1/4 of the day traveling to a place to spend another 1/3 working for a grand total of 1/2 of your day dedicated to something and only being paid for 2/3 of that time. It's pretty damn unreasonable to underpay your employees so badly that the only way for them to make ends meet is to spend half as much time as they work on gas, unpaid, and then chalk that up to "well you just can't live in your ideal location."

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I don't think the baby boomers deserve all the hate they're currently getting.

https://artplusmarketing.com/the-real-reason-baby-boomers-and-millennials-dont-see-eye-to-eye-written-by-a-millennial-5c7dfb15fe05

My Dad is a very early Boomer, born in 49. He's worked his knuckles to the bone,(literally on one of his middle fingers) to provide for us. nothing was given to him, he didnt have it easy. He took advantage of having a fairly financial savvy, and now owns multiple property investments and his own business. he cares nothing for material wealth. It was to ensure we had a safety net as we worked through early adulthood.

I don't think its fair to heap resentment on folks who only acted through a desire to help their children, and blame them for our problems.

Its the everlasting cycle. the youngsters blame their parents, who in turn chastise them for their decreasing morals. that sort of thinking doesnt get us anywhere.

is that Millennials may be less inclined to sacrifice their lifestyles for the big house in a good neighborhood and school district. Because there are plenty of people who do those two-hour commutes each way and take those hits to their lifestyles because they value those other things THAT much

 gorgon wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


Playing devil's advocate here...so you could potentially afford something. It just wouldn't be your ideal situation and lifestyle.

When someone says they can't afford housing, it generally means within a reasonable radius of their workplace. I live an hour's commute outside of Toronto and houses in my area are 500K CAD minimum, you have to go another hour out to find stuff in the 200-300K range. Four hour daily commutes aren't reasonable - yes, some people do it, but it's not reasonable and it takes a huge toll on people.

Again playing devil's advocate...so you could potentially afford something. It just wouldn't be your ideal location.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
This is the natural lifecycle of Capitalism.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
This is the natural lifecycle of Capitalism.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Most people my age don't move out of their parents house till they are 30. (source had two siblings who all left at age 30, and had several friends sharing their space with their parents because how expensive it is and just cheaper in terms of living than living afar)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
This is the natural lifecycle of Capitalism.

Or poor economics. Not increasing minimum wage and requiring higher education and student debts is a massive issue. Schools are far more expensive now than they have ever been. https://www.forbes.com/sites/debtwire/2018/10/08/college-costs-more-than-ever-but-some-schools-go-against-trend-and-slash-prices/#1b2cf43872c7

There are some exceptions but its hard not to find students with massive crippling debt or ability to go into the housing market or afford simple things.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-college-tuition-has-increased-from-1988-to-2018.html

Its risen considerably and not because of 'capitalism' its more of geopolitical and people failing to increase wages.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
This is the natural lifecycle of Capitalism.

True. I'm suspecting socialist policies to gain popularity this century. Capitalism is already viewed as pretty toxic by millenials and I suspect the next crash will hit right on time to do the same to the next generation, meaning two consecutive generations with a strong dislike. Capitalism is also (and rightly so) going to get a lot of blame over big businesses putting so much effort into downplaying climate change or outright denying it. Boomers will also (again, rightly so) get flak for that as well.

Captalism is why they are not increasing wages.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Why wouldn't you want your consumers having, in general, more spending power?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Because you can make more money for YOUR business by reducing wages. The impact of YOUR business on consumer spending is minimal.

 gorgon wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


Again playing devil's advocate...so you could potentially afford something. It just wouldn't be your ideal location.

I feel like you're kind of trivializing the absurdity of spending 1/4 of the day traveling to a place to spend another 1/3 working for a grand total of 1/2 of your day dedicated to something and only being paid for 2/3 of that time. It's pretty damn unreasonable to underpay your employees so badly that the only way for them to make ends meet is to spend half as much time as they work on gas, unpaid, and then chalk that up to "well you just can't live in your ideal location."

Not really where I was going with it.

Setting aside other situations for a moment, let's focus on a case of a younger person -- good worker, gainfully employed but still early in his/her career with an income that reflects that -- unable to purchase affordable housing in a desirable major metro area.

TO ME, this seems like a fairly timeless issue and not one unique to 2018 or the Millennial generation. What MAY be unique -- and what's interesting to me, and not in some mocking "HO-HO-HO, typical Millennial" way -- is that Millennials may be less inclined to sacrifice their lifestyles for the big house in a good neighborhood and school district. Because there are plenty of people who do those two-hour commutes each way and take those hits to their lifestyles because they value those other things THAT much.

Obviously, we're talking in degrees and not in absolutes, because there are certainly Millennials who are putting up with punishing commutes to get that house in the 'burbs. Still, even a change measured in degrees may eventually have some interesting implications for suburban and (especially?) exurban real estate markets.

 LordofHats wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


Again playing devil's advocate...so you could potentially afford something. It just wouldn't be your ideal location.

I feel like you're kind of trivializing the absurdity of spending 1/4 of the day traveling to a place to spend another 1/3 working for a grand total of 1/2 of your day dedicated to something and only being paid for 2/3 of that time. It's pretty damn unreasonable to underpay your employees so badly that the only way for them to make ends meet is to spend half as much time as they work on gas, unpaid, and then chalk that up to "well you just can't live in your ideal location."

 Asherian Command wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Because you can make more money for YOUR business by reducing wages. The impact of YOUR business on consumer spending is minimal.

Companies and short-term business decisions go very well apparently.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Because you can make more money for YOUR business by reducing wages. The impact of YOUR business on consumer spending is minimal.

Companies and short-term business decisions go very well apparently.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
No, but you can blame them for denying those incentives to anyone else once they've had the benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
No, but you can blame them for denying those incentives to anyone else once they've had the benefit.

Or for the sort of doublethink Techpriestsupport mentions; "I did it all by myself", disregarding the thousands of dollars of government aid they received. Because I deserved it, not like those freeloaders.

 daedalus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Because you can make more money for YOUR business by reducing wages. The impact of YOUR business on consumer spending is minimal.

Companies and short-term business decisions go very well apparently.

Yes.

But more fundamentally, no one in the country (or anywhere probably) simply gives a flying feth about the economy outside of how much money they're making out of it. If I rent property at $1000/mo, and all the properties are getting rented out, then charging $800 would give my tenants more purchasing power in the economy. But it gives me $2400 per year per renter less than I would have received otherwise, and they're going to spend that money on something that is not rent. There's absolutely no incentive for me to do so. That goes the same anyone and anything else out there that's not regulated as a utility.

And the government has no incentive to attempt to do anything about it because the companies incentivize the government to leave it be with their considerable spending power, media outlets have an incentive to make anyone who doesn't play by those rules look as crazy as possible and get labelled socialist, voters have an incentive to vote against the socialists because 'socialism is eeeevil', and because, philosophically speaking, something something free market and/or Adam Smith along with a little bit of "it's not broke enough to fix yet because everyone has their cell phones and if people can't afford fill the spaces in their empty lives with the things they see in stores then the sick fethers are still somehow content enough to live vicariously through unboxing videos on youtube" sprinkled on top.

Club "We've Got Ours", I'd like to introduce you to our host. He's Got His, and I've Got Mine, meet The Decline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's not all bad though. The one positive thing that this is doing is increasing the rate of marijuana legalization, so there's that.

Prestor Jon wrote:

You're putting way too much emphasis on politics and media hype and not nearly enough on basic market forces. If you own rental units the rent you charge for them is going to be tied to the market rate for your area. If you are trying to rent a building full of 2 bedroom apartments and the going rate in your area is $750-800/month you won't rent them if you list them for $1200/month. Likewise you wouldn't try to rent them for $500/month because you'd be undervaluing your property for no reason. You rent the units for their market rate because you're the one that owns the building and has to pay for them so if you under charge on rent the result will be you selling the building because you won't be able to afford to keep it because you'll be losing money on it every month.

We have a consumer based economy. We always have, it's been that way for centuries and the state we're in now was entirely predictable and the problems we're facing aren't new. A consumption economy needs consumers to buy goods and services so it needs companies to produce goods and services. Technological advances continue to shrink the amount of manual labor needed to produce and deliver goods and services and corporatist regulations make it easier for fewer corporations to dominate the market and eliminate competition. Look up the 10 biggest employers in your state and the percentage of your state's labor force they employ. That degree of dominance provides them with a large amount of insulation against market forces. The biggest employers feel the least pressure to raise wages because they rarely encounter a shortage of applicants to take the jobs on offer and since the largest employers aren't incentivized to raise wages it lessens the pressure on smaller employers to raise wages which causes wage stagnation which shrinks disposable income and limits consumer purchasing power. The shrinking purchasing power of consumers incentivizes the producers of goods and services to streamline costs which incentivizes automation and less labor which again decreases pressure to raise wages. It's a vicious cycle but it's a cycle that we've been locked into for centuries. Along the way world events or technological innovations will fuel the boom times which inevitably cycle down into lean times and the boom and bust cycle generates smaller and smaller booms and longer periods of busts because the booms require less and less job growth and wage growth which is what fuels economic expansion.
The market drives all of this by default with no malice needed.

 daedalus wrote:
I had a thing I was going to post here that was sarcasm, comparisons of housing, school, and food prices between the 60s and now, and various other things, but it got super depressing.

Instead I'll sit here and reflect on how I actually have an extremely well paying job, and while I actually do have savings and investments, I live pretty meagerly at this point, or at least what I'd consider meager. And I'm still not where I want to be on those savings and investments.

I don't honestly know how anyone with an even average paying job survives.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
This is the natural lifecycle of Capitalism.

True. I'm suspecting socialist policies to gain popularity this century. Capitalism is already viewed as pretty toxic by millenials and I suspect the next crash will hit right on time to do the same to the next generation, meaning two consecutive generations with a strong dislike. Capitalism is also (and rightly so) going to get a lot of blame over big businesses putting so much effort into downplaying climate change or outright denying it. Boomers will also (again, rightly so) get flak for that as well.

Well we might see it shift in paradigm for companies where it becomes serving the community and people as they see a greater good.... Hopefully a man can dream of a star trek future okay!

Captalism is why they are not increasing wages.

I disagree it sounds more like corrupt idiots and people not understanding economics.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
You know it was inevitable that a generation of americans would do less well then their parents and grandparents because america's huge boom and economic dominance was based on something that would not last.
...
So this was foreseeable, and sadly a lot of the rich saw it and decided to make money off it for themselves while everyone else took the hits. Like the housing market crash.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
You know it was inevitable that a generation of americans would do less well then their parents and grandparents because america's huge boom and economic dominance was based on something that would not last.
...
So this was foreseeable, and sadly a lot of the rich saw it and decided to make money off it for themselves while everyone else took the hits. Like the housing market crash.

I'm slightly confused. Either it was inevitable or foreseeable. Personally I think it was foreseeable and previous generations (primarily the baby boomers, but not being too strict about the dates) decided to put their own gain about that of future generations. In the UK the generation before started the NHS and universal well-fair, they built new towns, they started social housing. Before them were the great reformers who formed unions, built equitable working out of the oppression of the industrial revolution, built the great social infrastructure like sewers. Then the following generation lived off that, failed to invest and mortgaged the futures of their children and grandchildren.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Either it was inevitable or foreseeable.

 Easy E wrote:
So what your saying is, all America needs to do to solve this generational problem is to bomb everyone else back into the stone age?

I think we have a new plan. Someone get the President on the line!

Prestor Jon wrote:

I don't disagree that living near your place of work can be too expensive to be achievable but that's really not something that can be blamed on employers.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So what your saying is, all America needs to do to solve this generational problem is to bomb everyone else back into the stone age?

I think we have a new plan. Someone get the President on the line!

The internet also made it easier to start your own business and operate your own storefront without incurring the costs of a brick and mortar store. That's a good thing, lower costs and less gatekeeping helps increase entrepreneurship. However, those small business have to compete with industry giants like Amazon. That's why good economic policy and regulation is so important. Corporatism is not good and doesn't help a capitalist consumer based economy. It's counter productive in the long run for everyone except a small number of corporations. Capitalism thrives on opportunity. The opportunities to produce goods and services, opportunities to contract out your labor and opportunities to purchase goods and services. Corporatism stifles opportunity to benefit monolithic corporate entities dominating industries.

 Easy E wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So what your saying is, all America needs to do to solve this generational problem is to bomb everyone else back into the stone age?

I think we have a new plan. Someone get the President on the line!

The internet also made it easier to start your own business and operate your own storefront without incurring the costs of a brick and mortar store. That's a good thing, lower costs and less gatekeeping helps increase entrepreneurship. However, those small business have to compete with industry giants like Amazon. That's why good economic policy and regulation is so important. Corporatism is not good and doesn't help a capitalist consumer based economy. It's counter productive in the long run for everyone except a small number of corporations. Capitalism thrives on opportunity. The opportunities to produce goods and services, opportunities to contract out your labor and opportunities to purchase goods and services. Corporatism stifles opportunity to benefit monolithic corporate entities dominating industries.

Good post Prestor Jon.

I just kept the last paragraph as it clearly points out the need for Trust Busting, Anti-Monopoly, and strong regulation to avoid Corporatism to strengthen Capitalism. This is a form of Protectionism that does not involve Tariffs. Probably getting too political....

Therefore to segway, if Millennials are the current "market" that needs to be expanded into it would seem many companies are doing it wrong. How many articles have we all seen about how "Millenials are killing Industry X"? Isn;t it more that Company X is not appealing to their needs?

More efficient collaboration, I find myself wanting to get some "face-time" (I mean physical proximity) while they tend to get what they need and run with it with the odd message sent to confirm things.

I find the older Millennials spend a huge amount of time on their phones and with very little of that activity translating to productive product for where-ever they are employed.

My kids tell me they do not need to memorize anything because they have access to everything at all times.

We have a consumer based economy

We have a consumer based economy

 LordofHats wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I don't disagree that living near your place of work can be too expensive to be achievable but that's really not something that can be blamed on employers.

I never blamed employers for the high cost of housing.

I blame them for offering amounts so low no one can live near where they work, which is something they should damn well know and they still offer laughably low salaries. I don't expect a raise every time CoL goes up. I expect to be paid enough that if you want me there in 4 weeks I'll have somewhere I can afford to live. If you're not willing to pay me that much, well I know why you haven't been able to fill this position for 7 years. I'd write it off as a one off thing from a stupid employer but I've seen this 3-4 times now.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Memory is important. Comes in handy for pub quizzes

 Easy E wrote:
Unless of course, no jobs are really paying enough. I believe there has been some compelling arguments made on that front by Economists such as Klugman about unintentional wage collusion?

Granted, I am not an expert on the subject.....

 Easy E wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So what your saying is, all America needs to do to solve this generational problem is to bomb everyone else back into the stone age?

I think we have a new plan. Someone get the President on the line!

The internet also made it easier to start your own business and operate your own storefront without incurring the costs of a brick and mortar store. That's a good thing, lower costs and less gatekeeping helps increase entrepreneurship. However, those small business have to compete with industry giants like Amazon. That's why good economic policy and regulation is so important. Corporatism is not good and doesn't help a capitalist consumer based economy. It's counter productive in the long run for everyone except a small number of corporations. Capitalism thrives on opportunity. The opportunities to produce goods and services, opportunities to contract out your labor and opportunities to purchase goods and services. Corporatism stifles opportunity to benefit monolithic corporate entities dominating industries.

Good post Prestor Jon.

I just kept the last paragraph as it clearly points out the need for Trust Busting, Anti-Monopoly, and strong regulation to avoid Corporatism to strengthen Capitalism. This is a form of Protectionism that does not involve Tariffs. Probably getting too political....

Therefore to segway, if Millennials are the current "market" that needs to be expanded into it would seem many companies are doing it wrong. How many articles have we all seen about how "Millenials are killing Industry X"? Isn;t it more that Company X is not appealing to their needs?

It's not personal, it's just math.

If a job doesn't pay enough to be worth your time then don't bother applying for it.

There's no sense in taking it as a personal affront it'll just get you wound up over something that's not worth the anger and frustration.

 LordofHats wrote:

EDIT: Hell I'm not even sure most employers are actually hiring for the jobs they advertise for. I've had more interviews for "we think you're qualified for this job but we really think you're better suited for this one" because somehow some idiot read my resume and wants to quiz me on what I know about protecting computer networks from cyberattacks (there is absolutely nothing on my resume to suggest I know anything about this subject), and then they get disappointed when I say "no I've never stopped a hacker before."

It's bad math. I can't count how many postings I see that are open for years. Some of them are basically always open because they're always looking for someone. Other times, I'm pretty damn sure they can't hire anyone because no one is that cheap. Employers like to complain left and right about how hard it is to find good workers, but they aren't remotely interested in paying for good workers.

 Asherian Command wrote:

It's bad math. I can't count how many postings I see that are open for years. Some of them are basically always open because they're always looking for someone. Other times, I'm pretty damn sure they can't hire anyone because no one is that cheap. Employers like to complain left and right about how hard it is to find good workers, but they aren't remotely interested in paying for good workers.

AS an example there was a open post for an internship position for a UX design intern. you know an entry level position for a college student. Its be up there for a good... Two years. I can't say what company but I've applied to it numerous times by mistake thinking it was a new position but found out it was the same position but they haven't filled it... Ever.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

It's bad math. I can't count how many postings I see that are open for years. Some of them are basically always open because they're always looking for someone. Other times, I'm pretty damn sure they can't hire anyone because no one is that cheap. Employers like to complain left and right about how hard it is to find good workers, but they aren't remotely interested in paying for good workers.

AS an example there was a open post for an internship position for a UX design intern. you know an entry level position for a college student. Its be up there for a good... Two years. I can't say what company but I've applied to it numerous times by mistake thinking it was a new position but found out it was the same position but they haven't filled it... Ever.

Yeah.

The best example I've ever seen is a job for a Curator for 37k.

In Orange County California.

When I first noticed it 3 years ago it was already 8 years old. It's still there.

Mario wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

It's bad math. I can't count how many postings I see that are open for years. Some of them are basically always open because they're always looking for someone. Other times, I'm pretty damn sure they can't hire anyone because no one is that cheap. Employers like to complain left and right about how hard it is to find good workers, but they aren't remotely interested in paying for good workers.

AS an example there was a open post for an internship position for a UX design intern. you know an entry level position for a college student. Its be up there for a good... Two years. I can't say what company but I've applied to it numerous times by mistake thinking it was a new position but found out it was the same position but they haven't filled it... Ever.

Yeah.

The best example I've ever seen is a job for a Curator for 37k.

In Orange County California.

When I first noticed it 3 years ago it was already 8 years old. It's still there.

I got a negative reply to an application a few weeks ago (they choose somebody else, standard polite reply and so on). Last week the same job is still available… and there's another—similar—one, just one link further down?

Another company that declined is still looking for somebody since November… of 2017.

 Asherian Command wrote:

I wonder if companies just do that to find cheaper labor or someone who has experience and / or someone they could abuse?

 LordofHats wrote:

EDIT: Hell I'm not even sure most employers are actually hiring for the jobs they advertise for. I've had more interviews for "we think you're qualified for this job but we really think you're better suited for this one" because somehow some idiot read my resume and wants to quiz me on what I know about protecting computer networks from cyberattacks (there is absolutely nothing on my resume to suggest I know anything about this subject), and then they get disappointed when I say "no I've never stopped a hacker before."

nareik wrote:


I'm amazed how many 'trainee' positions are asking for 5 years of experience. I mean wtf?! This isn't 2008 anymore.

 Steve steveson wrote:

nareik wrote:


I'm amazed how many 'trainee' positions are asking for 5 years of experience. I mean wtf?! This isn't 2008 anymore.

It's illigal in the UK to ask for a set number of years exprince, yet I still see a lot of job adverts doing it.

Prestor Jon wrote:
On the topic of job listings going unfilled, I know that sometimes there isn't a pressing need to fill a vacant position but managers don't want to lose the budget and FTE slot that goes with the vacant position. In our department we have over 80 vacant FTEs but we're only really looking to fill maybe 60 or so of them and only a portion of those are going to be hired in the near future. If the vacancies that don't need to be filled right now were just taken away they couldn't be recreated in the future without first going through the arduous approval/justification process so it's easier to leave them empty.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
One reason tbat millennials are broke is that inflation doesn't affect all equally. A person with almited income spends most of his income on necessities, like food, medicines rent, etc. Even slight inflation pretty much rapes his budget.

Rising food prices don't really hurt rich people much. They spend a tiny speck of their income on food.

Ditto for gas prices. Rich peolle can afford to but a home so rent isn't an issue. When all increase even slightly the people with the least suffer the most.

 Easy E wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
On the topic of job listings going unfilled, I know that sometimes there isn't a pressing need to fill a vacant position but managers don't want to lose the budget and FTE slot that goes with the vacant position. In our department we have over 80 vacant FTEs but we're only really looking to fill maybe 60 or so of them and only a portion of those are going to be hired in the near future. If the vacancies that don't need to be filled right now were just taken away they couldn't be recreated in the future without first going through the arduous approval/justification process so it's easier to leave them empty.

i.e. the system incentives the wrong behaviors.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If I can give my feelings as a Millennial.
I feel as if I was just funneled through a system that wants my money and nothing more. I was constantly told to go to college and get a degree. I went, got told to learn what I love, did that, left college with some debt(only 15000, not the 300000+ of some of my centemparies) that is paused because vi work for a non profit. I couldn't find anything after college. Got screws by temps. I'm just happy that now I work where I made double minimum wage.
But even if I work full time, I can't afford to live on my own. Like at all.
It's frustrating to go through all what the previous generation told me to do, but not come out even in the middle, it feels like I was led down the wrong path.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If I can give my feelings as a Millennial.
I feel as if I was just funneled through a system that wants my money and nothing more. I was constantly told to go to college and get a degree. I went, got told to learn what I love, did that, left college with some debt(only 15000, not the 300000+ of some of my centemparies) that is paused because vi work for a non profit. I couldn't find anything after college. Got screws by temps. I'm just happy that now I work where I made double minimum wage.
But even if I work full time, I can't afford to live on my own. Like at all.
It's frustrating to go through all what the previous generation told me to do, but not come out even in the middle, it feels like I was led down the wrong path.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If I can give my feelings as a Millennial.
I feel as if I was just funneled through a system that wants my money and nothing more. I was constantly told to go to college and get a degree. I went, got told to learn what I love, did that, left college with some debt(only 15000, not the 300000+ of some of my centemparies) that is paused because vi work for a non profit. I couldn't find anything after college. Got screws by temps. I'm just happy that now I work where I made double minimum wage.
But even if I work full time, I can't afford to live on my own. Like at all.
It's frustrating to go through all what the previous generation told me to do, but not come out even in the middle, it feels like I was led down the wrong path.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If I can give my feelings as a Millennial.
I feel as if I was just funneled through a system that wants my money and nothing more. I was constantly told to go to college and get a degree. I went, got told to learn what I love, did that, left college with some debt(only 15000, not the 300000+ of some of my centemparies) that is paused because vi work for a non profit. I couldn't find anything after college. Got screws by temps. I'm just happy that now I work where I made double minimum wage.
But even if I work full time, I can't afford to live on my own. Like at all.
It's frustrating to go through all what the previous generation told me to do, but not come out even in the middle, it feels like I was led down the wrong path.

This hits a lot of notes for me. I'm pretty much in the same boat only I'm making minimum wage. It's just not possible for me to pay down my university and college loans with that kind of money, nevermind start a family or buy a house.

 Grimskul wrote:

Same here, outside of my tutoring I get paid minimum wage, and at Costco you have to work an ungodly amount of hours to even get top-step pay, which sucks when they push newer employees to work super efficiently (beyond what should be expected at least for a single person) but there's no real incentive to do so (as many of the full-time workers there know), I'm just lucky to have relatively good benefits in comparison to other minimum wage jobs.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

Same here, outside of my tutoring I get paid minimum wage, and at Costco you have to work an ungodly amount of hours to even get top-step pay, which sucks when they push newer employees to work super efficiently (beyond what should be expected at least for a single person) but there's no real incentive to do so (as many of the full-time workers there know), I'm just lucky to have relatively good benefits in comparison to other minimum wage jobs.

Is Costco (I'm assuming we're talking about the wholesale grocery chain, right?) that much different in Canada from the US??

Here in the US it is one of, if not THE best grocery chain to work for, they simply do not pay minimum wage (usually they start off at $12/hr, but if local min. is higher, they go up proportionally), and have a solid reputation of treating workers right.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

Same here, outside of my tutoring I get paid minimum wage, and at Costco you have to work an ungodly amount of hours to even get top-step pay, which sucks when they push newer employees to work super efficiently (beyond what should be expected at least for a single person) but there's no real incentive to do so (as many of the full-time workers there know), I'm just lucky to have relatively good benefits in comparison to other minimum wage jobs.

Is Costco (I'm assuming we're talking about the wholesale grocery chain, right?) that much different in Canada from the US??

Here in the US it is one of, if not THE best grocery chain to work for, they simply do not pay minimum wage (usually they start off at $12/hr, but if local min. is higher, they go up proportionally), and have a solid reputation of treating workers right.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If I can give my feelings as a Millennial.
I feel as if I was just funneled through a system that wants my money and nothing more. I was constantly told to go to college and get a degree. I went, got told to learn what I love, did that, left college with some debt(only 15000, not the 300000+ of some of my centemparies) that is paused because vi work for a non profit. I couldn't find anything after college. Got screws by temps. I'm just happy that now I work where I made double minimum wage.
But even if I work full time, I can't afford to live on my own. Like at all.
It's frustrating to go through all what the previous generation told me to do, but not come out even in the middle, it feels like I was led down the wrong path.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If I can give my feelings as a Millennial.
I feel as if I was just funneled through a system that wants my money and nothing more. I was constantly told to go to college and get a degree. I went, got told to learn what I love, did that, left college with some debt(only 15000, not the 300000+ of some of my centemparies) that is paused because vi work for a non profit. I couldn't find anything after college. Got screws by temps. I'm just happy that now I work where I made double minimum wage.
But even if I work full time, I can't afford to live on my own. Like at all.
It's frustrating to go through all what the previous generation told me to do, but not come out even in the middle, it feels like I was led down the wrong path.

College is a scam. I went to a coding boot camp and got a job making 3x minimum wage+ immediately. Roughly the same or more than what I would have made with the degree I was pursuing (assuming I could get a job in that field since it seems cutthroat). I think rent is roughly one fifth of my take home pay IIRC. Web/Mobile app development is a great field with a lot of opportunities, but sadly many (if not most) of the people trying to get into are not good developers and show little potential.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Anyways, I am afraid that my generation (I was born in 1999) is going to have it even worse.

According to our calculations, the increase in student loan debt between 2005
and 2014 reduced the homeownership rate among young adults by 2 percentage
points. The homeownership rate for this group fell 9 percentage points over
this period (figure 2), implying that a little over 20 percent of the overall decline
in homeownership among the young can be attributed to the rise in student
loan debt. This represents over 400,000 young individuals who would have
owned a home in 2014 had it not been for the rise in debt.

 Easy E wrote:
Some more information about the impact of student debt on buying a house.....

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/consumer-community-context-201901.pdf?mod=article_inline

From the Fed's research:

According to our calculations, the increase in student loan debt between 2005
and 2014 reduced the homeownership rate among young adults by 2 percentage
points. The homeownership rate for this group fell 9 percentage points over
this period (figure 2), implying that a little over 20 percent of the overall decline
in homeownership among the young can be attributed to the rise in student
loan debt. This represents over 400,000 young individuals who would have
owned a home in 2014 had it not been for the rise in debt.

Education Debt and Student Loans
Among young adults who attend college, it is increasingly expected that at least a portion of their education will be financed through a student loan or through other forms of borrowing. The survey asks respondents about their use of borrowing to finance their education and the status of any loans that they incurred. The results show that the repayment status of student loans is highly correlated with the respondents' family background and the type of institution that they attended. In particular, individuals who either did not complete their degree or who attended a for-profit institution are disproportionately likely to fall behind on their student loan payments.
Student Loans Overview
Thirty percent of adults report that they borrowed money to pay for expenses related to their own education, including 17 percent who currently owe money on these loans and 13 percent who borrowed money that they have since repaid. Among those who completed at least some education beyond high school, 43 percent acquired at least some debt to finance that education, and 53 percent of those who completed at least a bachelor's degree acquired at least some debt in the process. Consistent with the higher rate of borrowing among recent cohorts of college attendees, the fraction of adults who have ever borrowed for their education is slightly above that observed in the 2015 survey. Further reflecting recent increases in educational borrowing, for each level of education, the likelihood of borrowing is highest among those ages 18 to 29 (figure 27).
While education debt is often in the form of student loans, this is not the exclusive form of borrowing to pay for higher education expenses. Among respondents who report that they currently owe money for their own educational expenses, 94 percent report owing money on student loans, but 20 percent have education-related credit card debt, 5 percent have a home-equity loan or line of credit used for education expenses, and 4 percent have education debt of some other form.40
Among respondents who report that they currently owe student loan debt for their own education, the mean level of this debt is $32,731 and the median is $17,000.41 (The median amount of education debt is consistently lower than the mean due to some individuals with large levels of debt.) Considering other forms of debt for one's own education, the median amount of education-related credit card debt among those who have this debt is $2,500 and the median education-related home-equity loan is $10,000. Looking at all debt acquired for the respondent's own education combined, the median level of education debt is $19,000 (table 29).
Not all respondents who have outstanding education debt are currently making payments on all of their loans. Thirty-eight percent of respondents with outstanding student loan debt from their own education indicate that one or more of their loans are in deferment, so they do not currently have to make payments on that loan. Among those who indicate that they currently are making payments on one or more loans for their own education, the average monthly payment is $393, with a median monthly payment of $222.
The burden of education debt also extends beyond just the person obtaining the education. One way in which some parents or other family members assist with education debt is through direct assistance to help the borrower make loan payments. When borrowers are asked whether anyone else, such as a parent, is helping with debt payments for their education, 19 percent report that this is the case.42 The frequency of such assistance is greater among young borrowers. Fifty-two percent of borrowers under age 25 report that someone else is assisting them with these education debt payments, which is partially reflective of the high rate of assistance among those who are still enrolled in school (table 30).

Higher Education and Human Capital
Whether an individual attends college and completes his or her degree has long been understood to be a major determinant of lifetime income and financial well-being. However, as both real college costs and the percentage of students borrowing to pay for education continue to rise, some have questioned whether the relationship between higher education and lifetime returns may now be more complicated.
The survey asks respondents about their educational experience, their perceptions of the value of their degree, and--among those who did not complete a college degree--why they did not continue their education. The survey also considers the financing of education and the use of student loans, which is discussed in the "Education Debt and Student Loans" section of this report.
Consistent with findings in the 2015 survey, results of the 2016 SHED show that most adults who went to college believe that the value of their education meets or exceeds the costs, although the perceived value of higher education varies widely depending on program completion, type, and major. In particular, while most respondents who have a degree from traditional public or nonprofit institutions report that their education was worth the cost, perceptions of the value of one's degree are less positive among non-completers and among respondents who graduated from a for-profit school.
Value of Higher Education by Educational Characteristics
In order to monitor the perceived value of higher education, the survey asks respondents who completed at least some college whether they believe that the lifetime financial benefits of their postsecondary education outweigh the lifetime financial costs. Overall, 53 percent of adults with at least some college education feel that the benefits of their education exceed the costs and an additional 26 percent feel that the costs and benefits are about the same. Just 19 percent believe that the costs of their education exceed the financial benefits that it produced.
While individuals generally view their education as worthwhile, responses to this question vary based on several characteristics of the education.33 Among non-completers, who attended college but failed to complete at least an associate degree, 36 percent feel that the education was worth the cost, whereas 26 percent feel that the costs outweigh the benefits.34 For those who completed additional education, the likelihood of viewing the degree as beneficial is much greater. Among these degree completers, 64 percent feel that the benefits of their education outweigh the costs, compared to just 16 percent who feel the costs outweigh the benefits.
Self-perceptions of the value of one's education also vary based on the type of institution attended. Among non-graduates, the type of institution attended has no statistically significant impact on the self-perceived value of the education. However, among those who completed their degree, substantial differences emerge based on where the individual went to school (figure 22). Sixty-five percent of graduates from public or not-for-profit institutions report that the value of their degree exceeded the cost. Among graduates of for-profit institutions, just 40 percent feel this way.35
Figure 22. Overall, how would you say the lifetime financial benefits of your bachelor's degree, associate degree, or most recent educational program compare to its financial costs? (by completion of at least an associate degree and institution type)

Note: Among respondents who completed at least some college. Degree completers are those with at least an associate degree or a bachelor's degree. Bachelor's and associate degree recipients are asked to report on their perceptions of that degree. Those without at least an associate degree are asked to report on their most recent educational program.
Additionally, this difference is not purely due to the selectivity of the institutions. The Carnegie Classification categorizes schools based on how selective (accepting a small number of applicants) or how inclusive (accepting a larger share of applicants) they are.36 Among respondents who completed a degree from a public or nonprofit school that the Carnegie Classification rates as a part-time, two-year, or inclusive institution, 56 percent feel that the benefits outweigh the costs, which still exceeds the percent with this level of satisfaction regarding the value of their degree among graduates of for-profit institutions.
As was observed in previous years of the SHED, there is also evidence that the field of study impacts how people with similar levels of education value their degree (table 24). While sample sizes for any given degree are small, among respondents who completed at least an associate degree, those with degrees in engineering are the most likely to report that the benefits of their degree exceed the costs.
Table 24. Overall, how would you say the lifetime financial benefits of your bachelor's or associate degree program compare to its financial costs? (by field of study)
Percent
Field of study Benefits outweigh costs About the same Costs outweigh benefits
Engineering 76.3 13.8 9.5
Business/management 70.2 18.4 11.1
Life sciences 69.8 17.9 12.3
Computer/information sciences 68.8 12.6 18.6
Physical sciences/math 65.7 19.5 14.9
Education 64.7 19.2 15.4
Health 62.8 25.1 10.9
Law 54.1 15.5 30.1
Humanities 54.0 20.3 25.8
Vocational/technical 51.2 32.2 16.6
Social/behavioral sciences 50.2 28.7 20.3
Other 48.4 22.0 29.0
Undeclared 34.2 50.1 11.8
Did not state 51.1 19.8 19.0
Note: Among respondents who completed at least an associate degree.

30% of people who earned a law degree don't think the benefits outweigh the cost, 26% of people with humanities degrees don't think the benefit outweighs the cost and 20% of people with behavioral science degrees don't think the benefits outweigh the costs. That's way too many people who believe that they are worse off because they went to college.

XuQishi wrote:

30% of people who earned a law degree don't think the benefits outweigh the cost, 26% of people with humanities degrees don't think the benefit outweighs the cost and 20% of people with behavioral science degrees don't think the benefits outweigh the costs. That's way too many people who believe that they are worse off because they went to college.

I would be very surprised if it was different here in Germany, and college here is technically free. Everybody and his dog has a law degree (and most holders won't earn much because there are so many of them) and the other two branches tend to end in terribly paid jobs. Humanities in particular because these are not geared toward being capable in the industry, most courses - and I belong to the people who went into the humanities - are basically worthless in the industrial environment. Given that you lose several years at college that you pay for over someone with vocational training (who gets paid during training) and most jobs for, say, language majors pay worse than bricklaying or annoying people at the DMV there's really hardly any reason to go to college to study anything not STEM unless you want to get into academia, which is also already overflowing. I mean, we have like a hundred PhD for each tenured position and you get fired after six years of post-doc work if you don't score one of those positions (seriously, that is the law) that is not something that someone should really think about if the idea is not to just marry rich.

Sadly nobody warns (or at least warned during my time) young people enough that if you want to make a decent living, it's STEM or Economics, the rest is nice for your personal development, but quite worthless outside of academia.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Yes, but in Germany, don't you have much more rigorously "pathed" education from an early age?? As I understand things, there's a test that German students take at a certain age (correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it around the 11-13 year old range?) that somewhat determines what pathway a student goes down into their teenage and college/technical school years?

 Overread wrote:
Actually most baby boomers I've spoken too speak about how when they were really young it was tougher, but it was more about not having much because everything was post-war and there just wasn't much around.
But they had a lot of hope and jobs were so easy they could lose one in the morning and have another by the afternoon.

And that was without having to move counties/towns as well. Even in the countryside there were jobs. Today you can lose your job and spend months if not years sometimes hunting down another steady job.

es, but in Germany, don't you have much more rigorously "pathed" education from an early age?

and this out of the 2900 a month I get to keep after taxes

XuQishi wrote:
After primary school, i.e. 4 years with a reassessment 2 years later.
You could change paths later (either by finishing the path you were on and adding to it, or before that by passing a test), but apparently it wasn't such a terrible predictor...

 Khornate25 wrote:
Most of my friends are electricians, plumbers, engeeners and etc.
Most of them are broke or on welfare.

I think that this has more to do with the fact that we are seeing the last days of the economic boom that followed WW2.

nfe wrote:

XuQishi wrote:
After primary school, i.e. 4 years with a reassessment 2 years later.
You could change paths later (either by finishing the path you were on and adding to it, or before that by passing a test), but apparently it wasn't such a terrible predictor...

I'm sure. However, the data tends to suggest that streaming kids into different schools based on performance at an arbitrary age becomes self-fulfilling prophecy: it has incredible impacts on aspirations, self-confidence, social, teacher, and parental support, opportunities etc.