Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.)


.

Just because they want something doesn;t mean they have any right to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Man there are sure some woke people here, and i love it. I'm glad to see more and more people waking up to the fact that a tiny cabal is hoarding up all the money in the world which is causing most of the suffering to the majority.

 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.

At the risk of delving into politics, expressions like that only fuel the unnecessary divide. I'm fairly sure unless you live in a central African country (or Burma) you're not at risk of genocide.

 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.

 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.

 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.

It is an issue that needs to be dealt with on a broad level for humanity to move forward; unequal distribution of wealth is healthy to some extent because it is important to reward those who work harder and are generally more useful to society. But is an individual ever so insightful or so productive that they put more into society than a million average people would? A billion? Of course just taking from the wealthy by force is not the solution (even morality aside it has been tried many times before) but rather we need to seriously re-evaluate what level in inequality is tolerable.

Which is all to say the world is crappy, has always been crappy, and that will not change in the foreseeable future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

In my area people would be overjoyed to get a 600 square foot apartment for themselves at $1000/month. To say nothing of buying actual property. There is an issue in that the price of both land and raw materials have gotten so high that companies cannot afford to build low income housing. A wooden beam costs the same building a low-end apartment as it does a high-end condo.

 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.

For lots of people the idea of buying an 800 square foot home with a garage is fantastical. In parts of London that's in excess of a million pounds. In a lot of London it's half a million. 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.

It's not that people are just too entitled to settle for anything less than perfection.

*Having a quick check, every area within a one-hour commute of my girlfriend's office averages at least £400per-square-foot. So £320,000 for a homethat you would consider.

https://www.sctimes.com/story/news/local/2018/06/13/rent-too-high-minimum-wage-doesnt-pay-rent-any-state/699068002/

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

This, a thousand times this. It's so bizarre for the expectation of having years of experience for even some of the basic entry level positions. I mean, at that point, with those years of experience, why would people overqualified for that position for that apply to it? Meanwhile, potential candidates who need that experience get shut out because they don't have experience...but they can't get it without getting a job first, short of having volunteer work/internship (which again you have to compete for) that is HOPEFULLY related to it. It's a catch-22 in job hunting that frustrates me to no end.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

TBF if he came back and said 'sorry I thought the sarcasm was obvious' I would believe him.

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.

[urlhttps://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/05/07/millennials-buying-first-home-skip-starter-house-buy-dream/582309002/[/url]

Granted the story is about one bloke, but they do bring in other statistics. . . 300k for a house in the US is doing pretty good in the majority of housing markets (even in Seattle, which is the nearest major to me. . . because most of the seattle commuters are my neighbors)

 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.

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.

The problem is finding work out in smaller towns. If you’re lucky enough to, that’s great. I don’t make enough money in my job to afford a place to live in the same area, if I moved further out I would be able to afford a place with my salary, but my job doesn’t exist in those towns, or if it does it’ll just be a small operation that doesn’t employ many people.

And really out here things have gotten wors quite rapidly, my older siblings managed to afford their houses reasonably okay and they are older millennials, stupidly the fact I went to university worked against me because in those years the housing market went out of control and if I’d just gone straight in to the work force I’d have had a much better chance of getting a house. Now I have a half decent paying job but can’t afford the place to live.

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.

 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.

Schools do nothing to teach fiscal responsibility. then when kids reach 18 the banks are all over them offering credit cards and obscene overdrafts, and they have no idea how to handle them, and thus often end up in huge debt before theyre even grounded in a career, further hampering their chances of having money to invest in properties or stock portfolios.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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).

 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.

yeah I plugged in the ol pension calculator the other week and mine sucks. I will definietely have to set up another when I leave.

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).

There is definitely a divide when it comes to the rural and urban lifestyle. I live in a smallish town that has three major cities within 70 miles. Rent on a one-bedroom apartment in the city is about the same as a mortgage payment on a small home 20 minutes outside the city. I understand a certain level of convenience, I don't think I could do that long-term.

Born in 81 here so right on the edge generation wise and my circle of friends mirrors a lot of the issues discussed here. I have some friends who have found success by the normal definition of buying house having family but most of us did those things later in life than our parents did, sometimes not by much, sometimes by a significant amount. And I still have friends who are at home with their parents into their late 30's. Some due to their life choices but most due to society/the universe basically gaking on them.

I think the big take away from the analysis that the Fed did that has not been mentioned much in this thread are the long term repercussions of the lack of wealth for our generation right now. That magnifies as time goes on, Normally wealth is something that builds upon itself, the more you have the faster it builds. (It's not just an interest thing, the earlier you guy a house the more value it usually builds, and a bunch of other reasons) So if we are already 20% behind, that is only going to get worse as we get older and have to spend a greater percentage of our wealth on short term necessities instead of being able to save money for longer term investments. You think the older generations are having problems in retirement now? Holy hell is it going to be orders of magnitude worse when our generation approaches retirement.

I am really disturbed that this story is not front line headlines in every new paper and a non stop story on the 24/7 new stations because it damn well should be. I have a strong feeling that we will be looking back on this study and wondering why the hell we didn't do anything about it when we knew there was a huge problem brewing and just let it sit until it exploded.

As a fun side note, my favorite conversation piece when talking to someone from a previous generation about how Millennial's or Gen Z is are lazy/entitled/whatever is to point out that their generation (Baby Boomers or Gen X) raised them and that they are the primary reason they turned out how they did. Always funny how they never think of that while calling us entitled or what-not.

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...

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

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...

An 800 sq ft house near me is up for £230,000. It's a 3-bed house, 7-years old, and on the outskirts of Coventry. Near junction on the M6, but a village. There is a lot of similar-sized part-ownership properties on the same road.
Location, location, etc.

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.

 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.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way saying 'look at me I'm successful'. I don't especially feel so - more lucky. We'd have next to nothing if it wasn't for the sizeable inheritance I had from my grandparents.

Was more meaning in comparison to matey from rural Iowa - to buy an equivalent size house to his in my area, albeit with much less land, you need to be pretty damn wealthy, highly educated and fairly advanced in your career. Or have grandparents that leave you a 6 figure sum...

We are to the point in the thread where the usual suspects come out with the "I did it, so you can do it" arguments. Watching people assume that others have the same environments, lifestyles, and upbringings is always entertaining to watch.

House prices in the UK suffer from huge disparity too, even within quite close distances. We're looking at moving to the south West, and crappy houses in Central Bristol that need tons of work and are tiny, cost about the same as really nice bigger houses with more bedrooms in small towns between Bath and Swindon, and the cotswolds. This is good for me though so I'm not complaining.