Fed Says Millennials Are Just Like Their Parents, Only Poorer(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Fed Says Millennials Are Just Like Their Parents, Only Poorer
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-29/fed-says-millennials-are-just-like-their-parents-only-poorer
283 comments
> It's hard for me to even grasp the idea of it.
It's just an arbitrary label for people born in a certain period of history. These people generally have shared experiences that are different from the experiences of other generations.
> Who draws a line between generations and why?
Same people that draw a line between lemons and limes. It's sometimes a useful distinction so people remember it and use it.
> People do not stop being born, nor do they magically change because they supposedly belong to an imaginary generation.
There is no sharp dividing line between lemons and limes, either. Fruits in the citrus family can be crossbred with each other and you will end up with hybrids that cannot easily be classified as lemons or limes. There's no sharp line between "tall" and "short", or "white" and "gray". That's just the way names generally work, outside of fields like mathematics where you can use more precise definitions.
It's just an arbitrary label for people born in a certain period of history. These people generally have shared experiences that are different from the experiences of other generations.
> Who draws a line between generations and why?
Same people that draw a line between lemons and limes. It's sometimes a useful distinction so people remember it and use it.
> People do not stop being born, nor do they magically change because they supposedly belong to an imaginary generation.
There is no sharp dividing line between lemons and limes, either. Fruits in the citrus family can be crossbred with each other and you will end up with hybrids that cannot easily be classified as lemons or limes. There's no sharp line between "tall" and "short", or "white" and "gray". That's just the way names generally work, outside of fields like mathematics where you can use more precise definitions.
The world runs in cycles. You start to see various shifts when you zoom out historically. Conservative / liberal oscillations for instance:
The Age of Enlightenment prized composure and disparaged human emotion. The Romantics countered, to hell with composure! As William Blake wrote, "those who restrain desire do so because there's is weak enough to restrain." A life of love needed no guiding hand. Lord Byron wrote, "love will find a way through paths where wolves fear to prey."
Three generations later the pendulum swung back. The Dark Romantics underscored human fallibility. The Realists derided Romantic values and urged a return to everyday concerns and simplicity. Victorian culture prized moral strictness and Charles Darwin wrote, “the highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts.”
Then the pendulum swung again, culminating with the Roaring 20s, the rise of Flappers, drinking, spending, and (relative to the time prior) lots of sex. Americans valued optimism and prosperity.
That was until the Depression hit and war pulled us back to stricter social norms. Those too were repealed and replaced by 1970s "counter-culture," "if it feels good do it." That lasted till now, and many are suspecting that Gen Z is a reaction to Millenials. They've accepted the progress we've made but also reject the mistakes we've made. I won't mention surveys right now else this will become political, but basically every generation is a reaction to the one prior. And sometimes reactions take 2-3 generations, but it's always a cycle.
The Age of Enlightenment prized composure and disparaged human emotion. The Romantics countered, to hell with composure! As William Blake wrote, "those who restrain desire do so because there's is weak enough to restrain." A life of love needed no guiding hand. Lord Byron wrote, "love will find a way through paths where wolves fear to prey."
Three generations later the pendulum swung back. The Dark Romantics underscored human fallibility. The Realists derided Romantic values and urged a return to everyday concerns and simplicity. Victorian culture prized moral strictness and Charles Darwin wrote, “the highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts.”
Then the pendulum swung again, culminating with the Roaring 20s, the rise of Flappers, drinking, spending, and (relative to the time prior) lots of sex. Americans valued optimism and prosperity.
That was until the Depression hit and war pulled us back to stricter social norms. Those too were repealed and replaced by 1970s "counter-culture," "if it feels good do it." That lasted till now, and many are suspecting that Gen Z is a reaction to Millenials. They've accepted the progress we've made but also reject the mistakes we've made. I won't mention surveys right now else this will become political, but basically every generation is a reaction to the one prior. And sometimes reactions take 2-3 generations, but it's always a cycle.
I'm curious about those surveys, if you feel you could present them in a way that won't upset people with you. As a Millennial who teaches Gen Zers, observing the micro-generational differences and comparing them to reported trends (and trying to figure out what is simply a difference of age) is always interesting to me.
The Wikipedia article on Gen Z has some interesting info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z#Characteristics
One big trend is a massive shift towards saving and financial responsibility, more risk-averse, less willing to take on debt. Far less substance abuse (2013, 66% of teenagers (older members of Generation Z) had tried alcohol, down from 82% in 1991). 40% drop in teen pregnancy, a 38% drop in drug and alcohol abuse, and a 28% drop in dropout rates.
Re: church attendance, 41% among Generation Z, compared to 18 percent for Millennials at the same ages, 21 percent of Generation X, and 26 percent of Baby Boomers
Whereas Millennials were largely just magnifications of earlier trends in Gen X and Baby Boomers, Gen Z seems to be a rebuttal. It's too complex to make bets, but if I had to make a bet, I imagine 2-3 generations of risk aversion / conservative values before those become overbearing and we have another counter-conservative shift.
One big trend is a massive shift towards saving and financial responsibility, more risk-averse, less willing to take on debt. Far less substance abuse (2013, 66% of teenagers (older members of Generation Z) had tried alcohol, down from 82% in 1991). 40% drop in teen pregnancy, a 38% drop in drug and alcohol abuse, and a 28% drop in dropout rates.
Re: church attendance, 41% among Generation Z, compared to 18 percent for Millennials at the same ages, 21 percent of Generation X, and 26 percent of Baby Boomers
Whereas Millennials were largely just magnifications of earlier trends in Gen X and Baby Boomers, Gen Z seems to be a rebuttal. It's too complex to make bets, but if I had to make a bet, I imagine 2-3 generations of risk aversion / conservative values before those become overbearing and we have another counter-conservative shift.
Although I don't quite agree with the content of your analysis, the fact of this kind of analysis itself is wonderfully Hegelian.
I wish I knew more Hegel, but I feel like the synthesis model feels more calculated, whereas cycles seem reactionary (like economic cycles), albeit maybe with a positive trend.
Also feel free to share your disagreements. I love history but I'm certainly not an expert in cultural movements.
Also feel free to share your disagreements. I love history but I'm certainly not an expert in cultural movements.
> There is no sharp dividing line between lemons and limes, either
There is, if you care about scurvy: http://nowiknow.com/dont-forget-the-lime/
There is, if you care about scurvy: http://nowiknow.com/dont-forget-the-lime/
That article says the vitamin C problem was due to how they were storing the juice at the time. For fresh lemons and limes does the small difference in vitamin C actually matter?
limes have slightly less vitamin c?
> > Who draws a line between generations and why?
> Same people that draw a line between lemons and limes
I mean, I doubt it is really the exact same people who do this. At the very least it is a separate department that does the lemon-lime distincting.
> Same people that draw a line between lemons and limes
I mean, I doubt it is really the exact same people who do this. At the very least it is a separate department that does the lemon-lime distincting.
You might be surprised. Ernest Hemingway, an avid drinker, coined the term "lime" so he could distinguish it from other types of citrus in the Daiquiri, one of his favorite drinks. He also popularized the term Lost Generation, generally regarded as the first generational cohort with a name, although the term was originally coined by Gertrude Stein.
(Ohyyfuvg.)
(Ohyyfuvg.)
Hemingway also took a phrase from the Spanish bull fighting rings, "la hora de la verdad" and rendered it into English "The moment of truth." This immediately became a cliche in all kinds of journalism, especially sports reporting "They've only got 5 minutes left and they are down by 3, so this is the moment of truth."
Comment of the month
edit: never mind, it's not actually true - gullible me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lime_(fruit)
edit: never mind, it's not actually true - gullible me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lime_(fruit)
It's rare that I see an argument won so perfectly.
The whole thing was invented by two boomers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generatio...
My personal theory is that it is just an artifact of US boomer navel-gazing and self-exceptionalism.
Also that it fits in nicely with peoples' tendency to want to drop other people into little buckets so that they don't have to think about them too hard. People do the same thing with race, believing these differences between us are discrete and fall into categories that define our essence, rather than continuous multivariate gradations.
My personal theory is that it is just an artifact of US boomer navel-gazing and self-exceptionalism.
Also that it fits in nicely with peoples' tendency to want to drop other people into little buckets so that they don't have to think about them too hard. People do the same thing with race, believing these differences between us are discrete and fall into categories that define our essence, rather than continuous multivariate gradations.
I feel you there, although I do think it can be useful to say things like "people born before 1980 will not experience climate change like those born after."
Fair enough, as this is something that will happen to a given person, not some intrinsic attribute of their personality. But consider, too, the arbitrariness of specifying 1980. As someone born in 1980, I feel this acutely, as I'm not really gen-x nor am I really millennial. People born just before and just after me will feel climate change about the same. The framing implies a discrete change, but there isn't one.
It's annoying how the media continues to perpetuate their shit by parroting the labels as if they meant something.
Thinking about it further newspapers have always printed daily horoscopes, so obviously there's money to be made pandering to peoples self identity.
Thinking about it further newspapers have always printed daily horoscopes, so obviously there's money to be made pandering to peoples self identity.
The post-war baby boom was not something exceptional to the US. There were baby booms in most of the western world.
Very true, but the life of a post war baby was very different than someone who grew up during the great depression, or during the roaring 20s, or any other time. It is useful to bin people into groups facing similar environmental and temporal situations, it makes comparisons and tracking a given bin of people through time easier.
A couple things:
1. Age distribution is not uniform: the histogram of people's ages really is multimodal (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2016/...) so talking about generations is a way to think about the "clusters" of ages.
2. Intuitively there is a certain zeitgeist that comes from being around for certain events or being affected by certain societal or economic forces. What did it mean to be a teenager or a college student in 1968? Do Americans who recall September 11, 2001 versus those too young to remember it think differently about things? How did the recession of 2007 affect those who were starting off their careers versus those who were about to retire? Generations are an attempt to generalize the answers to these questions.
1. Age distribution is not uniform: the histogram of people's ages really is multimodal (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2016/...) so talking about generations is a way to think about the "clusters" of ages.
2. Intuitively there is a certain zeitgeist that comes from being around for certain events or being affected by certain societal or economic forces. What did it mean to be a teenager or a college student in 1968? Do Americans who recall September 11, 2001 versus those too young to remember it think differently about things? How did the recession of 2007 affect those who were starting off their careers versus those who were about to retire? Generations are an attempt to generalize the answers to these questions.
9/11 is an interesting example; the youngest Millennials (born '81-'96, according to Pew and others) were only five at the time, so do their experiences really match the teenagers and young adults at the time, who had enough context to understand what they were watching?
In my experience, that's not true at all, to them it was merely an historical event, whereas I quite distinctively remember the shock, despite not even being an American.
In my experience, that's not true at all, to them it was merely an historical event, whereas I quite distinctively remember the shock, despite not even being an American.
But people of the same age also have very different experiences for the same event. A 15 year old in NYC would remember 9/11 way differently than one from Colorado.
You don't work in marketing/advertising. Companies need to segment populations of consumers with similar characteristics to effectively advertise, tailor products, and sell to them. One of the most common demographic dividers is age. Different "generations" are grouped together because the members of their population exhibit similar income and expenditure patterns on average.
Generation and age demographics are not the same thing though. Age demographics are constantly shifting and you go through several of them as you age and you situation changes, generations stick. Of course that means that a given generation will tend to go through the same stages at the same time but all generations went through the "kids" phase and the "teenager" phase at some point.
Generations are really a blunt and rather useless tool IMO. Besides "only 90's kids will remember this" memes.
Generations are really a blunt and rather useless tool IMO. Besides "only 90's kids will remember this" memes.
Generations has been a concept long before marketing. I do wonder about who draws the line for where a generation begins/ends, but the concept is pretty clear: you are one generation, your children another, your parents another, your grandparents another. Hence the base word "generate".
Market research agencies draw the line nowadays and their terms get picked up in general lingo
Philosophers, novelists, sociologists, anthropologists, and economists used to define, study, and critique generational divides before advertising became such a pervasive part of the modern economy
Philosophers, novelists, sociologists, anthropologists, and economists used to define, study, and critique generational divides before advertising became such a pervasive part of the modern economy
>Philosophers, novelists, sociologists, anthropologists, and economists used to define, study, and critique generational divides before advertising became such a pervasive part of the modern economy
And they still do...
And they still do...
Millennials, Gen X, and Gen Z don't seem to have been coined by market research agencies.
They rarely coin words into mainstream lingo. But they are uniquely positioned with their data streams to detect trends as they are happening. And they will happily co-opt a term and promote it, if the term makes it easier for consumers to self-identify as part of a group.
That eliminates the marketing effort to convince a consumer that they are part of a particular group. Getting individuals to self-identify themselves as members of various groups is a highly effective advertising delivery channel. Convincing you to use groupings as a convenient, time-saving shorthand (like branding is a convenient shortcut) gets you to buy more, more frequently.
Marketers and advertisers fear you insisting upon evaluating situations and people one-on-one, as they come up in your life, and using the marinating and revealing effects of time to judge value and character.
That eliminates the marketing effort to convince a consumer that they are part of a particular group. Getting individuals to self-identify themselves as members of various groups is a highly effective advertising delivery channel. Convincing you to use groupings as a convenient, time-saving shorthand (like branding is a convenient shortcut) gets you to buy more, more frequently.
Marketers and advertisers fear you insisting upon evaluating situations and people one-on-one, as they come up in your life, and using the marinating and revealing effects of time to judge value and character.
> I do wonder about who draws the line for where a generation begins/ends
It's not really fixed as far as I can tell. Around the actual turn of the millennium, millennials were said to start in 1980. Now it's more commonly pegged at 1982.
It's not really fixed as far as I can tell. Around the actual turn of the millennium, millennials were said to start in 1980. Now it's more commonly pegged at 1982.
WWII. There was such a large group of people born between 1945 and 1950, after the war ended, that they all push through the system at the same time.
Woodstock music festival happened in 1969 right when everybody was in the their 20s or about to hit 30.
Then they all had kids at roughly the same time, the 1970s and early 80s. Housing boom of the 1980s. Lots of new kids shows that happened in this time period as well.
Now all of those kids are buying houses and having kids. Another housing boom.
Woodstock music festival happened in 1969 right when everybody was in the their 20s or about to hit 30.
Then they all had kids at roughly the same time, the 1970s and early 80s. Housing boom of the 1980s. Lots of new kids shows that happened in this time period as well.
Now all of those kids are buying houses and having kids. Another housing boom.
In the Netherlands, this effect is even stronger. We also speak of the baby boomer generation. Can't speak for the rest of Europe though.
No it does not make sense, but I think what you may be missing is that it is not supposed to make logical sense as a concept, it's supposed to appeal to other parts of a person's psyche such as pride and belonging. So this contradiction and confusion that you observe is completely accurate, but that doesn't deteriorate the effectiveness of "generational thinking" at what it does.
I think it's just a part of a bigger pattern that groups of humans tend to fall into where they pick arbitrary lines to divide them into groups so that they can justify condescending the other group.
There is also the other component that people like to tell narratives with history, which is easier when you can condense the actions of millions of people into a number of categories you can count on your hand. Largely speaking, I think the world is just really complex and the ways we try to simplify it and comprehend it break down in some illogical ways because they were never superbly accurate models in the first place.
It's good to know (I wasn't aware before) that this trend isn't present in all groups of humans, it gives me hope that it is able to be overcome collectively.
I think it's just a part of a bigger pattern that groups of humans tend to fall into where they pick arbitrary lines to divide them into groups so that they can justify condescending the other group.
There is also the other component that people like to tell narratives with history, which is easier when you can condense the actions of millions of people into a number of categories you can count on your hand. Largely speaking, I think the world is just really complex and the ways we try to simplify it and comprehend it break down in some illogical ways because they were never superbly accurate models in the first place.
It's good to know (I wasn't aware before) that this trend isn't present in all groups of humans, it gives me hope that it is able to be overcome collectively.
>It's good to know (I wasn't aware before) that this trend isn't present in all groups of humans, it gives me hope that it is able to be overcome collectively.
Did you just place yourself in the group of persons above such baseless group-defining behavior?
Did you just place yourself in the group of persons above such baseless group-defining behavior?
It seems like I did with my words, but I did not mean to. Thanks for pointing that out, I'm just as guilty of all of the behaviors I described which is part of what helps me recognize the pattern in the first place.
The main driver of "generations" is mass culture. In most of the world, culture is local, transmitted from parent -> child and from village -> child, based on a relatively stable set of people that the child comes in contact with. As a result, culture doesn't change significantly between children born at different times, though it may differ significantly between children born in different places.
America since roughly the 1920s has been different. The invention of radio and television allowed a small set of companies to dictate culture across the whole nation (and later, the whole English-speaking world). Moreover, their incentive is always to seek the latest hot fad rather than broadcast the same messages over and over; stations that do the latter (eg. public radio, classical music) get eclipsed by ones that don't.
As a result, the cultural experience of people born at the same time will be roughly similar. You can talk to most early Millenials about Transformers and My Little Pony and Voltron and G.I. Joe and Punky Brewster and Full House and they'll know what you're talking about. You can talk to most baby boomers about Beatlemania and the Ed Sullivan Show and the JFK assassination and they'll know what you're talking about. You generally cannot talk to the former about the latter.
In other areas where mass-culture has been exported and widely adopted, you see generations arise as well. People have spoken about generations in Japan since the 1980s, and people are starting to talk about generations in China.
There's some evidence that the Internet is actually destroying mass culture and the concept of generations with it. Notice that the generation after Millenials hasn't even been named, and they also seem a lot more diverse in their cultural & musical tastes and a lot more accepting of diversity in general. But it'll take a while (a few generations, at least) before this really takes hold, assuming we don't get a major event that reverses it.
America since roughly the 1920s has been different. The invention of radio and television allowed a small set of companies to dictate culture across the whole nation (and later, the whole English-speaking world). Moreover, their incentive is always to seek the latest hot fad rather than broadcast the same messages over and over; stations that do the latter (eg. public radio, classical music) get eclipsed by ones that don't.
As a result, the cultural experience of people born at the same time will be roughly similar. You can talk to most early Millenials about Transformers and My Little Pony and Voltron and G.I. Joe and Punky Brewster and Full House and they'll know what you're talking about. You can talk to most baby boomers about Beatlemania and the Ed Sullivan Show and the JFK assassination and they'll know what you're talking about. You generally cannot talk to the former about the latter.
In other areas where mass-culture has been exported and widely adopted, you see generations arise as well. People have spoken about generations in Japan since the 1980s, and people are starting to talk about generations in China.
There's some evidence that the Internet is actually destroying mass culture and the concept of generations with it. Notice that the generation after Millenials hasn't even been named, and they also seem a lot more diverse in their cultural & musical tastes and a lot more accepting of diversity in general. But it'll take a while (a few generations, at least) before this really takes hold, assuming we don't get a major event that reverses it.
It's a very American thing. They like to categorize people and then assign attributes to that group. "Conservative", "Liberal", "Gen X", ""Millenial", "Baby Boomers" and so on. I also find it pretty unhelpful to think about society that way. I think Clinton for example thought that "women" would vote for her because they are "women" and all "women" have the same opinions.
I am from India and I practically grew up listening how unfortunate my elders were. Every time I complained of the cable TV not working, the standard reply was - “When I was of your age, I had to look out a window”.
Ergo, the generation thing is always there, just that it takes a different form in different countries.
Ergo, the generation thing is always there, just that it takes a different form in different countries.
While i can say i had similar experiences, it is indeed true that middle class wealth and options are only showing up in the recent generation(s). A lot of these things are based in reality albeit personal experiences can differ a lot and some elders may just be exaggerating
> It's funny how this "generation" thing only quite exists (as far as I know) in the English-speaking world.
Not really, am from a Slavic country and we definitely speak of generations as well.
Not really, am from a Slavic country and we definitely speak of generations as well.
That's a bit different though. Most Slavic countries were part of the Eastern Bloc. Hard to have a bigger generation gap than the fall of the Iron Curtain.
Well, my grandma lived through Petersburg’s blockade (she were about 5 at the time). My parents lived through the fall if the Iron Curtain.
I don’t think we ever had a name for it, but those generational differences were implied.
I don’t think we ever had a name for it, but those generational differences were implied.
It's kind of like separating the 19th century from the 20th century at WW1. Millenials are separated from Gen X by having computers and the internet introduced at some point while they were growing up. Whereas Gen Z are the kids who have had iPads since they were babies.
> Millenials are separated from Gen X by having computers and the internet introduced at some point while they were growing up.
I'm in Gen X (and not at the very end). I used a computer at school in 4th grade, had my first computer at home within a year, had a PC clone at home (our third family computer) by the end of 6th grade, had a modem and CompuServe account in middle school.
Millennials may be distinguished by being likely to have had access to the Web before leaving high school, but not by having (personal) computers introduced while they were growing up.
I'm in Gen X (and not at the very end). I used a computer at school in 4th grade, had my first computer at home within a year, had a PC clone at home (our third family computer) by the end of 6th grade, had a modem and CompuServe account in middle school.
Millennials may be distinguished by being likely to have had access to the Web before leaving high school, but not by having (personal) computers introduced while they were growing up.
Gen Z starts around 1998 or so, so presumably many of them did not had iPads as babies.
> Who draws a line between generations and why?
Market research organizations I think.
They segment people into generations (and smaller subcategories) in order to better understand how to sell them products and services.
They are marketing buckets.
The corporate mindset is so pervasive in north america, that we take on their concepts and discuss them even outside of their area of application.
This is why we talk about which movie 'grossed' the most on the weekend, instead of comparing movies on their artistic or cultural merits.
Market research organizations I think.
They segment people into generations (and smaller subcategories) in order to better understand how to sell them products and services.
They are marketing buckets.
The corporate mindset is so pervasive in north america, that we take on their concepts and discuss them even outside of their area of application.
This is why we talk about which movie 'grossed' the most on the weekend, instead of comparing movies on their artistic or cultural merits.
Movie reviews compare movies on their artistic and cultural merits, and they are quite pervasive. When I search for a movie, for example, the rating is the first thing that appears, along with a bunch of review sites. The box office is almost invisible.
We talk about which movie grossed the most because it’s the best proxy we have for how many people saw it, not mainly because we care about how much the production company made.
Generation x was coined by douglas coupland, an author (author of microserfs, incidentally)
I was born in 1984. I had a curious upbringing, true, but I find I have very little in common with "kids" born in 1997, the last year of my "generation". In 1997, I was a freshman in highschool. Things changed dramatically between '97 and '10. For instance, kids my age didn't grow up with social media, we had land lines and dial up internet, and none of us had cell phones.
I was born in '63 and didnt see computers until 1976 (Apple IIe). The only form of telephone was a landline. WHen working in Hongkong in 1987 i saw first mobile - the Motorola brick.
It's easier to make clickbait headlines when you pigeonhole people into a "generation."
It's a convenient shorthand for talking about and summarizing continuous statistical distributions. Shorthands are okay. As to your question, if you draw the lines between differently, you only get slightly different results, because it's fundamentally measuring the dependence of various factors on age, and the exact way you draw those lines isn't important.
Generations are a bullshit idea from the marketing/advertisement cesspool to give themselves makework. The idea that demographic trends are descrete or have some sort of constant period is ludicrous, but this stuff has so pervaded pseudo-intellectional relms of media that, yes, real scientists at the real US government have stooped to using them.
Are they the original "fake news"?
*I should point out that the "boomers" are real insofar that birthrates did rise and fall. The rest is bullshit. There's no "boomlet" caused by them. "Greatest" is more senial Regan shit still haunting us. X, Y, is being too lazy to even find a bullshit name, and millennial is believing that the way we count years somehow matters—actually probably does in a bunch of ways completely unrelated to the things marketing cares about.
Are they the original "fake news"?
*I should point out that the "boomers" are real insofar that birthrates did rise and fall. The rest is bullshit. There's no "boomlet" caused by them. "Greatest" is more senial Regan shit still haunting us. X, Y, is being too lazy to even find a bullshit name, and millennial is believing that the way we count years somehow matters—actually probably does in a bunch of ways completely unrelated to the things marketing cares about.
> Generations are a bullshit idea from the marketing/advertisement cesspool to give themselves makework
No that's not where they originated from.
> The idea that demographic trends are descrete or have some sort of constant period is ludicrous
Named generations don't have a constant period. (They tend to run between about 12 and 25 years.)
> I should point out that the "boomers" are real insofar that birthrates did rise and fall.
True.
> There's no "boomlet" caused by them.
Without attributing what caused it, there was a continuous nearly monotonic decline in US birthrates from the peak of the Baby Boom in 1954 through 1976 (Gen X is usually tagged as ending between 76 and 80, then a run up to a peak in 1990, followed by a drop back to the 1976 low in 1995, hovering around that point or slightly under through the end of the millennium, where it started dropping again.
The Millennial/Gen Y group does correspond to a boomlet.
No that's not where they originated from.
> The idea that demographic trends are descrete or have some sort of constant period is ludicrous
Named generations don't have a constant period. (They tend to run between about 12 and 25 years.)
> I should point out that the "boomers" are real insofar that birthrates did rise and fall.
True.
> There's no "boomlet" caused by them.
Without attributing what caused it, there was a continuous nearly monotonic decline in US birthrates from the peak of the Baby Boom in 1954 through 1976 (Gen X is usually tagged as ending between 76 and 80, then a run up to a peak in 1990, followed by a drop back to the 1976 low in 1995, hovering around that point or slightly under through the end of the millennium, where it started dropping again.
The Millennial/Gen Y group does correspond to a boomlet.
> 12 and 25 years
Still a low spread. No overlap is also weird, insofar that generations are supposed to be real phenomena and not just an arbitrary division.
> No that's not where they originated from.
How much does their current incarnation owe to whatever came before?
> The Millennial/Gen Y group does correspond to a boomlet.
You need to look at that children/potential mother rate. Constant means pure echo. Secondary crest further either shows we have more mothers and they mimick their own mothers in having more kids, a true cultural inheritance, or it shows that there is enough variation in maternity age that generations are sufficiently convolved such that no 1 generation begets the next. Those two can maybe be teased apart by combining the per-whole-population and per-potential-mother rates to get the mothering/potential mother rate.
Has anyone actually done any of these statistics?
Still a low spread. No overlap is also weird, insofar that generations are supposed to be real phenomena and not just an arbitrary division.
> No that's not where they originated from.
How much does their current incarnation owe to whatever came before?
> The Millennial/Gen Y group does correspond to a boomlet.
You need to look at that children/potential mother rate. Constant means pure echo. Secondary crest further either shows we have more mothers and they mimick their own mothers in having more kids, a true cultural inheritance, or it shows that there is enough variation in maternity age that generations are sufficiently convolved such that no 1 generation begets the next. Those two can maybe be teased apart by combining the per-whole-population and per-potential-mother rates to get the mothering/potential mother rate.
Has anyone actually done any of these statistics?
> No overlap is also weird
Several generation labels have overlap (recently, the “Xennial” group overlapping Gen X and Millennials is an example), and the boundaries are recognized as fuzzy, anyway.
> You need to look at that children/potential mother rate.
For what end? The boomlet absolutely occurred (the attribution of it as an echo boom is occasionally made, but isn't really signficant or essential.)
Several generation labels have overlap (recently, the “Xennial” group overlapping Gen X and Millennials is an example), and the boundaries are recognized as fuzzy, anyway.
> You need to look at that children/potential mother rate.
For what end? The boomlet absolutely occurred (the attribution of it as an echo boom is occasionally made, but isn't really signficant or essential.)
Before you call gen x a bullshit name, I suggest you look up its origin.
In Czech Republic, this "generation of something" is also sometimes used, because of two reasons:
First, there were actual population boom waves - one peaked after WW2, another peaked in the late 70s, another roughly after 2000. Also there was birth rate decline as an after shock from the transformation to the market economy. These waves seem to get generated by strong historical events or inadequate access to housing. In general, thanks to immigration and larger differences in the age of motherhood, these waves slowly disperse.
Second, because there was a lot of politically different historical periods in Czech Republic in the past 100 years, people born around the same time tend to have quite different experiences. So you have generation which was born in democratic Czechoslovakia after WW1, generation that grew up under Nazism, generation that grew during Communist purges in the 50s, generation that grew during a period of cultural renaissance in the 60s, generation that grew during a period of political tightening (normalization) in the 70s and 80s and generations born after the democratic revolution of 1989.
These different generations were largely learning a different language (German, Russian, English) and each was under influence of quite different culture than others.
First, there were actual population boom waves - one peaked after WW2, another peaked in the late 70s, another roughly after 2000. Also there was birth rate decline as an after shock from the transformation to the market economy. These waves seem to get generated by strong historical events or inadequate access to housing. In general, thanks to immigration and larger differences in the age of motherhood, these waves slowly disperse.
Second, because there was a lot of politically different historical periods in Czech Republic in the past 100 years, people born around the same time tend to have quite different experiences. So you have generation which was born in democratic Czechoslovakia after WW1, generation that grew up under Nazism, generation that grew during Communist purges in the 50s, generation that grew during a period of cultural renaissance in the 60s, generation that grew during a period of political tightening (normalization) in the 70s and 80s and generations born after the democratic revolution of 1989.
These different generations were largely learning a different language (German, Russian, English) and each was under influence of quite different culture than others.
I think it's based on the trope that teenagers rebel against their parents' beliefs, mixed with the idea of generational progress. So each generation of teenagers rebels against their parents' ideas that they believe are "outdated", and then supposedly grow up retaining this new framework of belief. So what was cool becomes uncool, what was progressive becomes conservative, etc etc.
I think it's mostly nonsense though. I think the underlying grouping that generation is a proxy for, is age group. 18-25 year olds behave differently from 25-35 or 35-50 (with some fuzziness at the edges). In other words it's loose grouping based on age/maturity.
I think it's mostly nonsense though. I think the underlying grouping that generation is a proxy for, is age group. 18-25 year olds behave differently from 25-35 or 35-50 (with some fuzziness at the edges). In other words it's loose grouping based on age/maturity.
You say that but you can see it in many "verticals" the old Unix way being replaced by systemd and such
Containers and such arent new. We have had FreeBSD jails for 2 decades plus
What is new is the thinking that is a better way of doing things. Jury is still out on that :)
Containers and such arent new. We have had FreeBSD jails for 2 decades plus
What is new is the thinking that is a better way of doing things. Jury is still out on that :)
[deleted]
> There is no such idea of generations of people where I come from. It's hard for me to even grasp the idea of it. Who draws a line between generations and why?
Not sure if with "comming from" you are referring to Poland or Germany but regarding the latter I have to answer with a confident "Stimmt nicht!".
There is a big discussion in Germany regarding the so called "Generationenvertrag" which is about the young generation financing the older generation's retirement. Which is working worse every year.
Also there are public discussions about social injustice particularly impacting the current generation and with regard to retirement a bleak outlook compared to the previous generation (not really the current) of retired citizens.
Not sure if with "comming from" you are referring to Poland or Germany but regarding the latter I have to answer with a confident "Stimmt nicht!".
There is a big discussion in Germany regarding the so called "Generationenvertrag" which is about the young generation financing the older generation's retirement. Which is working worse every year.
Also there are public discussions about social injustice particularly impacting the current generation and with regard to retirement a bleak outlook compared to the previous generation (not really the current) of retired citizens.
"Am I missing something?"
Yes - you're missing the detail of the first of these generations - those returning to the United States from having served in World War 2, took full advantage of the economic preeminence of the US, and begat the "baby boom generation".
So of course you are correct - births happen continuously and there is not an obvious "banding" of "generations" ... but in this case there was a very clear and pronounced age band, and all of the subsequent "generations" (baby boomers, gen X, gen Y, Millenials, etc.) proceeded from there.
Yes - you're missing the detail of the first of these generations - those returning to the United States from having served in World War 2, took full advantage of the economic preeminence of the US, and begat the "baby boom generation".
So of course you are correct - births happen continuously and there is not an obvious "banding" of "generations" ... but in this case there was a very clear and pronounced age band, and all of the subsequent "generations" (baby boomers, gen X, gen Y, Millenials, etc.) proceeded from there.
Not to mention general shifts in population sizes, methods of upbringing, shared cultural watershed moments, shared childhood information sources, cultural norms and expectations at a given time, experiences of war or famine or financial crisis, etc etc. Essentially all your priors from a Bayesian point of view.
I don’t know what’s not clear — if you grew up in China during the cultural revolution, you will be different than if you were born before or after. Your basic assumptions about humanity and government will be affected by such experiences and it will carry with you thru life.
I don’t know what’s not clear — if you grew up in China during the cultural revolution, you will be different than if you were born before or after. Your basic assumptions about humanity and government will be affected by such experiences and it will carry with you thru life.
I think I've only heard generations specifically named in our North American English-speaking culture, but I think it is a very useful idea anywhere in the modern world where everything is completely different every 20 years. One very obvious generational divide that applies to much of the world is between those that remember WWII and those that don't. Those involved in the Vietnam War (or the American War, as it is known in Vietnam) also share a (horrifying but bonding) experience that they do not share with later generations.
It is not just the English-speaking world. Most of Europe experienced a baby-boom in the years after WWII (Germany a decade later). This had very real social consequences, for example the impact of the youth culture in the late 60's. So at least the baby-boom generation is not an arbitrary distinction but a very real social phenomenon.
That said, I think "milleanials", "gen-X" etc. are arbitrary divisions - just a shorthand for talking about a specific age group.
That said, I think "milleanials", "gen-X" etc. are arbitrary divisions - just a shorthand for talking about a specific age group.
It’s not set in stone but these generations exist everywhere. Say one generation had to fight in war and one didn’t. You’ll see major differences in their personalities.
I think it is useful to group people by age. But yeah I'm not sure if the 'generation' distinction is helpful.
I was born in the early 80s so apparently am a millenial. (although I was gen Y before someone coined the term). I'm not sure that my life thus far has been closer to someone born in the 90s versus the 70s. I grew up without the internet or mobile phones which are supposed millenial things.
"Am I missing something?"
Not really. People like to categorize things in attempt to draw any kind of conclusions from it. Sometimes it can be helpful and sometimes not.
The trends they are describing were most likely occurring consistently over time and not at any particular point, but if you take two points in time 30 years apart and compare them it might look like a drastic change.
Not really. People like to categorize things in attempt to draw any kind of conclusions from it. Sometimes it can be helpful and sometimes not.
The trends they are describing were most likely occurring consistently over time and not at any particular point, but if you take two points in time 30 years apart and compare them it might look like a drastic change.
America does have a notable weakness for pop demography. However termed, though, I do think the phenomenon has been seen elsewhere. Google for "Young Ireland" or "Young Italy"--those go back a long way, even if the expression "generation" wasn't used in them.
Assuming you're in Europe, we go by decades. Ex., we say "in the 60s", "in the 90s", etc.
In the States they use "baby boomers", "generation x", "millennials" more, but it's the same thing.
It's all based on the postwar period (WWII, generally).
In the States they use "baby boomers", "generation x", "millennials" more, but it's the same thing.
It's all based on the postwar period (WWII, generally).
There concept is widely used in Japan as well fwiw. "The sexless generation" etc.
America as a whole is obsessed with labels and categorization, and an obsession with making things fit neatly in buckets, which is ridiculous. The media especially loves it, look at all the new acronyms they concoct on a daily basis.
Chinese talk about generations classified in decades by when they were born too.
For perspective there is also the chinese zodiac where you will exhibit particular traits depending on which part of a 12 year cycle you belong.
People like to categorise and be categorised to justify their actions or lack of action.
People like to categorise and be categorised to justify their actions or lack of action.
The large scale of deaths and later births that came from WWII affected age demographics in western countries enough that we have identifable "waves" in age groups and thus generations.
E.g. regime change in Russia, there is no "line" but people born in Soviet Union are very different from the ones born in modern day Russia
It's like the "class war", except directed at your own parents. I find it quite funny how people fall for this crap.
It’s an artifact of the wwii baby boom which did create a distinct generation. It’s starting to become fuzzier though.
My personal hypothesis is that this is related to the fact that the people who drive cultural output in the U.S. (the Left, basically) take a hands-off approach to transmitting culture to the next generation. As a result, each new generation in this sub-population of culture creators has had to engage in a high degree of cultural re-invention to fill in the gaps.
this was a great video about this topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HFwok9SlQQ
Its q uniquely american thing. It doesn't exist in the UK to the best of my knowledge.
Definitely not. Look at any UK based news paper, and you'll find articles comparing Millenials to Boomers - [0][1] are two articles I found within 30 seconds. Looking at places like /r/unitedkingdom, you'll find it full of people talking about other generations being selfish etc, where we're just trying to get by..
[0] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/baby-boomers-v-millennial... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/29/millennials-...
[0] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/baby-boomers-v-millennial... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/29/millennials-...
Agreed, and adding -- One can see the notion of epochal/generational change in earlier UK contexts. For instance, the post-WWI era ushered in a time of great social change and the "Bright Young Things" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_young_things). And of course the "Swinging Sixties" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging_Sixties) after the costs of WWII were paid.
I don't think this is at all an American phenomenon.
Another reference point: kids who always grew up with a smartphone, vs. slightly-older kids who got their first one, say, in college. Totally different thing.
I don't think this is at all an American phenomenon.
Another reference point: kids who always grew up with a smartphone, vs. slightly-older kids who got their first one, say, in college. Totally different thing.
I was born in 1980, which means I don't fit neatly into either 'Gen X' or 'Millennial.' I grew up with computers, but I'm able to walk down the street and watch where I'm going rather than stare at my smartphone whilst walking into other people, lampposts, cars, etc.
But really, it's all arbitrary and pointless, I agree.
But really, it's all arbitrary and pointless, I agree.
The term 'Xennial' was coined just for people in your demographic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xennials
For some reason the Gen Y label never stuck. It was the thing back in the 90s and early 2000s, but then just faded away for no reason in particular.
Because Millennial was catchier; Gen Y only made any kind of sense in relation to Gen X, not independently.
But Gen Y wasn't the millenials. Millenials came after them. Gen Y is the kids who grew up with computers and early Internet/BBSes, but not the pervasive information brokers that millenials know. Back when the internet was pseudononymous by default and nobody really knew how anybody was going to make money with it. Theme song: Smells Like Teen Spirit.
Maybe they should have been called the grunge generation.
Maybe they should have been called the grunge generation.
I think the term "poorer", and the monetary analysis done here, is too high level to extract real meaning.
The average young person/couple that I know are able to do and buy far more than their parents (e.g. eat out, order takeaway, take holidays, go to bars, buy things for hobbies, buy clothes, ...).
They just don't own property and have no path that leads there.
In some sense you could say that they have higher incomes whilst having lower wealth, but that doesn't really capture it.
Housing just went bonkers which makes retirement impossible.
The average young person/couple that I know are able to do and buy far more than their parents (e.g. eat out, order takeaway, take holidays, go to bars, buy things for hobbies, buy clothes, ...).
They just don't own property and have no path that leads there.
In some sense you could say that they have higher incomes whilst having lower wealth, but that doesn't really capture it.
Housing just went bonkers which makes retirement impossible.
They only need enough of an analysis to get a catchy article heading. Every day it's either "millennials are rich" or "millennials are poor".
Millennials are poor: ~10% have $15k saved up https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/09/a-growing-percentage-of-mill...
Millennials are rich: ~47% have $15k saved up https://www.sfgate.com/personal-finance/article/Millennials-...
Avoid articles that stereotype any generation, because they're garbage that distort the truth to push agendas and generate clicks.
Millennials are poor: ~10% have $15k saved up https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/09/a-growing-percentage-of-mill...
Millennials are rich: ~47% have $15k saved up https://www.sfgate.com/personal-finance/article/Millennials-...
Avoid articles that stereotype any generation, because they're garbage that distort the truth to push agendas and generate clicks.
Not to mention articles that use an average instead of median. Millennials can seem rich on average, but poor on median, because of the growing wealth disparity.
Maybe 30-50 years ago having 15K saved up was rich.
What can 15K get you today? An OK used car, maybe, and it's like 1/10th of the down-payment that's expected on a house that's still too far away from work, which you can't expect to stay at because no one has a stable career anymore.
What can 15K get you today? An OK used car, maybe, and it's like 1/10th of the down-payment that's expected on a house that's still too far away from work, which you can't expect to stay at because no one has a stable career anymore.
Where do you live? I bought a car that was <2 years old with <30k miles for just under 8 grand. You can easily find good cars for less than $15k. In fact, 15k is nearly enough for a brand new nissan sentra.
And with a median home price of $200k, $15k is nearly half of a down payment if you want to avoid mortgage insurance, and is plenty if youre willing to take on mortgage insurance.
Arguably the price of the car is still near enough to estimate; 15K being a median figure in the ballpark.
It's also not JUST the home price, it's the career, being able to expect to stay in the same area for a long time and generally do well.
I happen to live near Seattle, but I think the same could be said of a majority of the 25 most populated metro-areas in the US, if not a similar proportion of cities in most other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistic...
I'm extrapolating that any place with >5% population growth over the ~10 year period is in a similar bind due to various policies.
It's also not JUST the home price, it's the career, being able to expect to stay in the same area for a long time and generally do well.
I happen to live near Seattle, but I think the same could be said of a majority of the 25 most populated metro-areas in the US, if not a similar proportion of cities in most other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistic...
I'm extrapolating that any place with >5% population growth over the ~10 year period is in a similar bind due to various policies.
Thank you. The narrative is wack and stats are cherry picked for headlines.
Agreed. I live the life of incredible luxury compared to when my parents were my age, definitely in terms of "life experiences" and material possessions....except for housing. Getting on the property ladder seems like a dream that's very far away, even when working as an IT professional.
My parents had four kids when they were my age with a combined income likely less than mine (inflation adjusted). I don't know how they did it.
Vastly cheaper rent and mortgages that were within reach (barely).
Edit+ The above fueled by 'a hack' on the normal state of things; the outward growth of cities and freeways to previously rural land to create the suburbs we know today.
Edit+ The above fueled by 'a hack' on the normal state of things; the outward growth of cities and freeways to previously rural land to create the suburbs we know today.
I think it's worth noting that having a family is a "life experience" and a home is a "material possession". Many would argue that travel, dining out, bars... are shallow and hedonistic experiences while cultivating a family and community are enriching and rewarding.
It's not very enticing to start a family when you're renting and have no stability though.
When it seems like owning a home is completely unachievable, there's no point in saving so you might as well have those experiences.
Also I'd separate travel from those other things. Witnessing other cultures through travel is a very valuable experience IMO.
Community? What's that?
When it seems like owning a home is completely unachievable, there's no point in saving so you might as well have those experiences.
Also I'd separate travel from those other things. Witnessing other cultures through travel is a very valuable experience IMO.
Community? What's that?
That’s sort of my point. If you can’t afford those things are you really living a life of “incredible luxury”.
As for travel, it depends. I have a lot of friends doing “Instagram travel”. Literally deciding where to go based on where they can snap the best shot. There are also a lot of people doing very touristy things that don’t provide any sort of insight or deep meaning.
As for travel, it depends. I have a lot of friends doing “Instagram travel”. Literally deciding where to go based on where they can snap the best shot. There are also a lot of people doing very touristy things that don’t provide any sort of insight or deep meaning.
>As for travel, it depends. I have a lot of friends doing “Instagram travel”. Literally deciding where to go based on where they can snap the best shot. There are also a lot of people doing very touristy things that don’t provide any sort of insight or deep meaning.
Even traveling like that, they might accidentally pick up some culture by osmosis on the way to their next selfie-spot...
Even traveling like that, they might accidentally pick up some culture by osmosis on the way to their next selfie-spot...
[deleted]
You could move, right?
One of the things I've been contemplating is how student debt is a retirement issue. Especially with Social Security in a bind with all of the Baby Boomer retirements it's really important for people to take charge of their retirement early, but they can't if they are saddled with school debt. It adds up in a hurry too.
Assumption: Average student loan debt in the US is $25,000 with a 6.8% interest rate, with a 10 year repayment plan. Graduation age is 21 and retirement age is 65. Market return rate is 7%.
If you took that student loan money and instead invested it in the market after the 10 year loan period you would have $49,673. Leave it in the account until retirement and it grows to $495,642.
Of course half a million bucks won't be worth as much in 2062, but the difference between having the loan and not is substantial. This is one of those cases where subsidies up front can save a whole lot of money in the long run.
Assumption: Average student loan debt in the US is $25,000 with a 6.8% interest rate, with a 10 year repayment plan. Graduation age is 21 and retirement age is 65. Market return rate is 7%.
If you took that student loan money and instead invested it in the market after the 10 year loan period you would have $49,673. Leave it in the account until retirement and it grows to $495,642.
Of course half a million bucks won't be worth as much in 2062, but the difference between having the loan and not is substantial. This is one of those cases where subsidies up front can save a whole lot of money in the long run.
I think that they eat out and order takeaway because they perceive that they never going to save enough money to afford a house.
Sure.
In the UK it's not about saving, it's about income multipliers, which don't really involve financial discipline beyond the basic level of "have an emergency fund so you can interview properly".
In a silly limiting example, imagine you earn 40K. It's not intractable to save enough to hit a 5%, 10%, or whatever deposit on a 1 million property.
What is intractable is ever earning enough that 4x your income is equal to the remaining ~800-900K mortgage.
In the UK it's not about saving, it's about income multipliers, which don't really involve financial discipline beyond the basic level of "have an emergency fund so you can interview properly".
In a silly limiting example, imagine you earn 40K. It's not intractable to save enough to hit a 5%, 10%, or whatever deposit on a 1 million property.
What is intractable is ever earning enough that 4x your income is equal to the remaining ~800-900K mortgage.
There really is no pressing need to ever own a house. What do I get with ownership over renting? Sure, the mortgage payments might be cheaper than a given rent, and perhaps the local housing market might work in my favor, but perhaps it won't!
I might one day own a house, but that's not going to happen for at least a decade or more until my position rises from entry level to middle to a high-enough level where I actually have the liquid capital for a down payment on something worth dealing with a long term mortgage for, and have enough money set aside to deal with potential catastrophic repair or even just regular maintenance. Right now, if I come home and my roof is caved in, the floor is flooded, or my PSU explodes away half the house, I'm gonna shrug and call my landlord and renters insurance agency, and let them solve all these catastrophic problems on their time and their dime/
I'm in no hurry to get one, so I don't see a point to save specifically for a house at the expense of efficiency (spending 15 minutes to order and eat a meal vs. 1hr+ cooking one), or other more fruitful investment opportunities than home ownership. Not to mention, it would make moving around for better employment much more involved and stressful if I had a house I needed to sell or rent out in order to leave the city.
I might one day own a house, but that's not going to happen for at least a decade or more until my position rises from entry level to middle to a high-enough level where I actually have the liquid capital for a down payment on something worth dealing with a long term mortgage for, and have enough money set aside to deal with potential catastrophic repair or even just regular maintenance. Right now, if I come home and my roof is caved in, the floor is flooded, or my PSU explodes away half the house, I'm gonna shrug and call my landlord and renters insurance agency, and let them solve all these catastrophic problems on their time and their dime/
I'm in no hurry to get one, so I don't see a point to save specifically for a house at the expense of efficiency (spending 15 minutes to order and eat a meal vs. 1hr+ cooking one), or other more fruitful investment opportunities than home ownership. Not to mention, it would make moving around for better employment much more involved and stressful if I had a house I needed to sell or rent out in order to leave the city.
A friend of mine complains about the young SV crowd that decry unaffordable real estate but also drive expensive cars. I think this is the same motivation that you describe, but on a grander scale. In this case, they're playing the startup lottery, and if they win it won't matter if they drove a Honda or an Audi. And if they lose, they'll have to leave SV when it comes time to buy a house.
I don't personally subscribe to this mentality — I've seen other friends save up $50k, double it with patient investing, and then scrape together a down payment. Even if you end up leaving SV, having had property here can be a good investment.
I don't personally subscribe to this mentality — I've seen other friends save up $50k, double it with patient investing, and then scrape together a down payment. Even if you end up leaving SV, having had property here can be a good investment.
[deleted]
[deleted]
and have less time to cook at home and need both parents working full time instead of one. etc.
Hackernews is probably also an extremely skewed financial cross-section.
Most of my friends from my higher education and career, as well as everyone I know who I've heard mention hackernews, are like you said, making more than their parents and enjoying a higher quality of life but still not planning on buying property because housing costs are too high in cities.
But if I go back to the town where I grew up, most of the people I know that didn't move away to go to a good university or go into a field like tech or finance are worse off than their parents on any metric I can think of.
Most of my friends from my higher education and career, as well as everyone I know who I've heard mention hackernews, are like you said, making more than their parents and enjoying a higher quality of life but still not planning on buying property because housing costs are too high in cities.
But if I go back to the town where I grew up, most of the people I know that didn't move away to go to a good university or go into a field like tech or finance are worse off than their parents on any metric I can think of.
This has been on my mind for some time. Coming from a lower middle-class background in the midwest, and currently working for low wages, I use HN comments to get a feel for how 'the other side' thinks.
It's surreal to how alien a lot of the perspectives on HN are, even though many people here come from a similar background to mine.
It's surreal to how alien a lot of the perspectives on HN are, even though many people here come from a similar background to mine.
It's a lot of fun to be in your '50s, have your body start to fall apart and be a few paychecks away from being thrown into the streets. But hey, you could afford having a few beers with your friends in your '20s. Or even take a holiday, you rich bastard.
People have retirement accounts. People aren't taking cash out of their 401k early to get drunk with their friends on Friday (I hope). People in their 20s and 30s just aren't seeing much of a need to set aside otherwise disposable or earmarked money to one day use it all on a down payment for something that you don't NEED to ever actually own.
It's often lost on us how much more you can buy for a dollar today vs. 40 years ago (when corrected for inflation).
Excluding healthcare and higher education, unfortunately.
Probably also housing.
But if you look at healthcare you simply couldn't buy an insurance that offered 75% survival rate for cancer 40 years ago, today most insurances do..
I am not saying health insurance isn't too expensive and shouldn't be public. I'm saying product is better.
But if you look at healthcare you simply couldn't buy an insurance that offered 75% survival rate for cancer 40 years ago, today most insurances do..
I am not saying health insurance isn't too expensive and shouldn't be public. I'm saying product is better.
When corrected for inflation,I make 30% less than my father did right out of college.
And yet, you are having a conversation with a European who haven't had breakfast yet -- and it's costing you next to nothing :)
I'm not saying everything is fine and dandy. It's not.
I'm saying we often underestimate what we take for granted today, that wasn't possible 40 years ago.
I'm not saying everything is fine and dandy. It's not.
I'm saying we often underestimate what we take for granted today, that wasn't possible 40 years ago.
What you are talking about is having higher quality of life, despite having lower wealth.
But that's a separate subject in my opinion.
But that's a separate subject in my opinion.
"Quality of life" is a problematic term in that context.
Within bounds it's possible to compare. Two families living on the same street, one has $10k higher income than the other, the higher income family has (at least the potential for) a higher QoL.
But comparing someone with a high income in a downtown flatshare who has an ~infinite entertainment budget to someone who is well on the way to owning a home outright in the suburbs is really hard (e.g. a 30yo in London, vs their parents at 30yo).
The former doesn't have a higher or lower QoL than the latter because you can't define a benchmark without it being opinionated.
Within bounds it's possible to compare. Two families living on the same street, one has $10k higher income than the other, the higher income family has (at least the potential for) a higher QoL.
But comparing someone with a high income in a downtown flatshare who has an ~infinite entertainment budget to someone who is well on the way to owning a home outright in the suburbs is really hard (e.g. a 30yo in London, vs their parents at 30yo).
The former doesn't have a higher or lower QoL than the latter because you can't define a benchmark without it being opinionated.
I'll start by saying that I agree with your assessment of the underlying issue here, I just have a slight nitpick with your comparison.
Other areas do exist that could allow people to move out of the city to a cheaper owned home in the suburbs. Personally I don't think that's a good solution though because suburbs are pretty inefficient and seem likely to exacerbate the climate problem we're running full speed into. I just wanted to point out that you can form some comparison because they are both still relatively attainable. (I might be mistaken on the real estate landscape in the UK since I'm from the US, if so just disregard this comment)
My other comment is mostly aimed at GP, but it seems that it has persisted down the comment chain, which is that from everything I've heard and read, "Higher income, lower wealth" is not an accurate assessment of what is happening when you factor in inflation. It's more of "The same/lower income, lower wealth" on average. Even still though, given the ideals of a capitalist system saying that owning capital is literally worth capital itself, lower long term wealth is most definitely a long term problem because this is a runaway feedback loop of capital concentrating in the top and the lower non capital owning members of society are slaves to capital. You might be technically earning a wage and thus not fit the technical definition of slavery, but if you have less and less freedom (defined as less freedom through lack of actual choice) because of it, I see very little difference.
Other areas do exist that could allow people to move out of the city to a cheaper owned home in the suburbs. Personally I don't think that's a good solution though because suburbs are pretty inefficient and seem likely to exacerbate the climate problem we're running full speed into. I just wanted to point out that you can form some comparison because they are both still relatively attainable. (I might be mistaken on the real estate landscape in the UK since I'm from the US, if so just disregard this comment)
My other comment is mostly aimed at GP, but it seems that it has persisted down the comment chain, which is that from everything I've heard and read, "Higher income, lower wealth" is not an accurate assessment of what is happening when you factor in inflation. It's more of "The same/lower income, lower wealth" on average. Even still though, given the ideals of a capitalist system saying that owning capital is literally worth capital itself, lower long term wealth is most definitely a long term problem because this is a runaway feedback loop of capital concentrating in the top and the lower non capital owning members of society are slaves to capital. You might be technically earning a wage and thus not fit the technical definition of slavery, but if you have less and less freedom (defined as less freedom through lack of actual choice) because of it, I see very little difference.
I think it's just hard to compare between the generations due to changes in how lifestyles are financed. My parents came out of school with no debt and were able to buy a house way before me. I came out of school with considerable debt and wasn't able to buy a house for a while.
On the flip side, my parents talk about when I was first born and they had to choose between two toys because they couldn't afford both (a mirror and a little bird - maybe $20 each). I have never had an issue with access to money, even when I had nearly nothing in the bank and was paying down my student loans as fast as possible and something came up - a quick call to the bank was all that stood between me and enough to finance a full repair across the next 3 months instead of a bandaid. My parents didn't have that type of access to credit.
Me and my dad worked in a similar role (software development - him for a bank, me for defense) out of college. Granted, even inflation adjusted I made a lot more than him right out of school.
Also, even though my parents had a house way younger than me I wouldn't want a credit card with the interest rate my parents were paying on their house. It was insane.
On the flip side, my parents talk about when I was first born and they had to choose between two toys because they couldn't afford both (a mirror and a little bird - maybe $20 each). I have never had an issue with access to money, even when I had nearly nothing in the bank and was paying down my student loans as fast as possible and something came up - a quick call to the bank was all that stood between me and enough to finance a full repair across the next 3 months instead of a bandaid. My parents didn't have that type of access to credit.
Me and my dad worked in a similar role (software development - him for a bank, me for defense) out of college. Granted, even inflation adjusted I made a lot more than him right out of school.
Also, even though my parents had a house way younger than me I wouldn't want a credit card with the interest rate my parents were paying on their house. It was insane.
eat out, order takeaway, take holidays, go to bars, buy things for hobbies, buy clothes
Right. When I was a student in the mid-90s students were poor. We wore second-hand clothes because they were cheap, not because they were “vintage fashion” (which costs as much or more than new!), we re-used teabags instead of Starbucks every day, we went to the market at closing time to buy for pennies the produce the stallholders were about to throw away instead of takeaways and eating out, we drank crap beer at the union instead of going to clubs, we used PCs in the library rather than having our own laptops... students today are massively wealthier in every way than we were, even accounting for loan repayments.
Right. When I was a student in the mid-90s students were poor. We wore second-hand clothes because they were cheap, not because they were “vintage fashion” (which costs as much or more than new!), we re-used teabags instead of Starbucks every day, we went to the market at closing time to buy for pennies the produce the stallholders were about to throw away instead of takeaways and eating out, we drank crap beer at the union instead of going to clubs, we used PCs in the library rather than having our own laptops... students today are massively wealthier in every way than we were, even accounting for loan repayments.
> When I was a student in the mid-90s students were poor. We wore second-hand clothes because they were cheap, not because they were “vintage fashion” (which costs as much or more than new!), we re-used teabags instead of Starbucks every day, we went to the market at closing time to buy for pennies the produce the stallholders were about to throw away instead of takeaways and eating out, we drank crap beer at the union instead of going to clubs, we used PCs in the library rather than having our own laptops...
Virtually none of the students I knew when I was one I the 1990s did most of those things, more of the people I've known as students recently do them. (Yeah, we didn't have Starbucks per session, but we did have the overpriced trendy on-campus coffee stand with similar choices and, adjusted for inflation, higher prices then Starbucks has today, and it was busy constantly.)
Virtually none of the students I knew when I was one I the 1990s did most of those things, more of the people I've known as students recently do them. (Yeah, we didn't have Starbucks per session, but we did have the overpriced trendy on-campus coffee stand with similar choices and, adjusted for inflation, higher prices then Starbucks has today, and it was busy constantly.)
This is a very complex subject and I'm not trying to reduce it to something simple. But a big smell to me that something's just plain messed up is this fact:
I make more money (inflation adjusted) than my parents did combined when they bought the house I grew up in. I would have to double my salary to afford buying/maintaining that house today.
I make more money (inflation adjusted) than my parents did combined when they bought the house I grew up in. I would have to double my salary to afford buying/maintaining that house today.
Exactly. And thats largely because the boomers pulled up the ladder behind them via zoning rules to greatly restrict redevelopment and density of new development, thus denying adequate housing supply to their kids.
There could be lots of reasons for that, however. Since you have not provided enough information to make speculation possible, I will mention my own to illustrate my point:
My parents bought their house in 1970, when my dad was making about 15K. The house was about 30K. To buy that same house today you would need to make about 150K. Inflation adjusted, my dad's income then would only be about 100K now or maybe a little less.
But ... what changed? In 1970, we lived in a remote area, where it took close to an hour to get there from the nearest city of any size. But about 10 years later the freeway was built and the nearest city expanded, now the property is still technically rural but it's 15 minutes from the city. It would be hard to argue that the value of the property hasn't been significantly increased as a result. Not many people wanted to live that far out in 1970; my dad's coworkers at IBM all told him he was crazy. Today that area is very popular.
My parents bought their house in 1970, when my dad was making about 15K. The house was about 30K. To buy that same house today you would need to make about 150K. Inflation adjusted, my dad's income then would only be about 100K now or maybe a little less.
But ... what changed? In 1970, we lived in a remote area, where it took close to an hour to get there from the nearest city of any size. But about 10 years later the freeway was built and the nearest city expanded, now the property is still technically rural but it's 15 minutes from the city. It would be hard to argue that the value of the property hasn't been significantly increased as a result. Not many people wanted to live that far out in 1970; my dad's coworkers at IBM all told him he was crazy. Today that area is very popular.
Housing prices has risen more in some areas than others for sure, but the trend of housing rapidly outpacing wages still holds when looking at much larger data sets.
The last time this topic came up on HN, I recall someone bringing up numbers that show that if you control for house features, in particular size, the price actually hasn't gone up that dramatically. Average house used to be about 1600sf houses 40 years ago, now the average is 2600+.
That just shows profit margins on builds haven't changed. It doesn't matter if you are technically getting the same price per square foot on the house if you can't afford the homes available on the market.
Which town is this? Real estate is so much tied to location, its almost pointless to discuss a house's value without location.
It is about five miles outside the urban growth boundary of Portland, Oregon, in unincorporated Clackamas County.
Isn't that an argument that the inflation adjustment isn't suitable for this comparison?
It's an argument that vanilla inflation does not capture the changing costs of housing specifically. Considering housing is the #1 expense on most peoples' budgets, then yes, inflation alone is not appropriate. I believe that's the point the parent comment is making, and there is an implicit comparison there to all the economic analyses which compare childrens' incomes to their parents via inflation without accounting for housing.
Or that housing prices are too high.
From the article:
“What’s old is new again. The paper observes that some of the millennials’ parents were subject to similar baseless grumbles of "kids these days" from their elders.”
I don’t know though. Seems like part of the nastiness of the times is the baby boomers constantly taking jabs at millennials. Perhaps the silent generation complained the boomers weren’t “frugal enough” but I have a hard time believing they had such widespread disdain for their kids as the boomers do. Anyone seen any research that quantifies that?
“What’s old is new again. The paper observes that some of the millennials’ parents were subject to similar baseless grumbles of "kids these days" from their elders.”
I don’t know though. Seems like part of the nastiness of the times is the baby boomers constantly taking jabs at millennials. Perhaps the silent generation complained the boomers weren’t “frugal enough” but I have a hard time believing they had such widespread disdain for their kids as the boomers do. Anyone seen any research that quantifies that?
Baby boomers were teenagers and young adults from the late 50s through the 80s. So the birth of rock-n-roll, the protest movements of the 60s and 70s, emergence of drug culture, the sexual revolution, disco, the crack epidemic, and the birth of rap.
As a Gen X'er I can personally remember the mid-70s to the late 80s and the hate spewed out at baby boomers by previous generations. I don't think the Millennials have it any worse or better. Those who are currently going through it always see it as the worse.
I think out of everyone my generation had it the easiest. We were teenagers and young adults during a time of general peace and prosperity.
As a Gen X'er I can personally remember the mid-70s to the late 80s and the hate spewed out at baby boomers by previous generations. I don't think the Millennials have it any worse or better. Those who are currently going through it always see it as the worse.
I think out of everyone my generation had it the easiest. We were teenagers and young adults during a time of general peace and prosperity.
Now it's our job to bring peace and prosperity to the next ones.
The boomers have made it so difficult to buy a house that I chose to not have kids so I have a chance at having some peace and prosperity myself. Sucks but true.
Yeah, we were lucky. War was mostly over and all the debt hadn’t caused any problems yet when we were teens in the 80s and 90s.
That’s helpful perspective, thanks for sharing :)
I think that, like most stats now, it's inflated by the bullhorn of the internet.
Basically it probably happened but the world at large didn't have the ability to hear about it. Sort of like crime rates, even though they are lower than nearly any other time in the US the fact that the internet and 24 hour news cycle constantly talk about crimes the population as a whole feels its a bigger problem than it used to be.
Basically it probably happened but the world at large didn't have the ability to hear about it. Sort of like crime rates, even though they are lower than nearly any other time in the US the fact that the internet and 24 hour news cycle constantly talk about crimes the population as a whole feels its a bigger problem than it used to be.
I think it's largely that bullhorn. Before the Internet, you might read a magazine article or hear a news story once in while, but now that (almost) everybody can have a global voice, there are a lot more voices complaining about everything.
> I have a hard time believing they had such widespread disdain for their kids as the boomers do
It's always interesting when I hear boomers complain about millennials. Didn't they have an influence on raising the same generation they complain about?
It's always interesting when I hear boomers complain about millennials. Didn't they have an influence on raising the same generation they complain about?
Yeah this has become my standard reply when a boomer makes a stink about Millenials to me. “Sounds like they didn’t have very good parents.”
If you pay attention you'll note that it's always other peoples' kids who are the problem.
Only the positive part :)
I don't think that was any less in previous generations. I seem to recall hearing about a lot of grumbling about people protesting the Vietnam war, for example.
This sort of covers that:
"Older people love to gripe about the entitled, lazy millennial generation. But it's nothing new – by delving into the archives, we found plenty of parallels stretching back 2,000 years."
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20171003-proof-that-people-...
"Older people love to gripe about the entitled, lazy millennial generation. But it's nothing new – by delving into the archives, we found plenty of parallels stretching back 2,000 years."
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20171003-proof-that-people-...
Boomers were disdained as the "me generation" by their parents. Freaks, geeks, and long-haired hippies. It seems like the kids are always maligned by the olds, and vice versa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_generation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_generation
There was an article the other day that said divorce rates for millennials is down a notable amount from baby boomers, but without the marriage rate lowering. One way of interpreting this is that baby boomers have more selfish tendencies than other generations, and millennials are realizing that their parents' ways (including divorce) are selfish, and learning from their parents mistakes. If this is true, then it's perfectly in character for a stereotypical boomer to complain about millennials more than their parents complained about them.
I saw that study and it matched what I observe anecdotally around me. Millenials mostly have divorced parents and mostly feel that was a terrible way to grow up. So they’re waiting until they’re ready to have kids to get married to their long-term partner, and they’re approaching it with more of a sober commitment to stay together for the kids.
At the end of the day, marriage is a choice you make every day. Different cultures have higher and lower divorce rates largely based on how seriously they take that commitment.
At the end of the day, marriage is a choice you make every day. Different cultures have higher and lower divorce rates largely based on how seriously they take that commitment.
Divorce rates also decline when the economy declines. When the economy is booming people feel more confident in their potential future economic security post divorce and are more willing to roll the divorce dice.
I would guess that has more to do with the rates than any moral superiority between generations.
I would guess that has more to do with the rates than any moral superiority between generations.
Or it says that people can't afford to get divorced. In dense urban areas the cost of housing/rent has gone way up and the incomes for younger people have not kept up.
I don't think "millennials" are really all that different from the previous generation. However they do have very different forces pushing them in different directions.
I don't think "millennials" are really all that different from the previous generation. However they do have very different forces pushing them in different directions.
The greatest takeaway from this is that we [millenials] ought to make an effort to treat Generation Z with a respect that we are often not given. Let's not propagate that nastiness down the line.
I'm not having kids largely as a result of the mismanagement of the boomers.
I'm holding on to my nastiness.
I'm holding on to my nastiness.
Boomers originally earned the label of "the 'me' generation."
This has been a common meme forever. See: Fathers and Sons by Turgenev.
The culture wars have enveloped everything nowadays, from #MeToo to GamerGate to Trump. I wonder if gripes between boomers and millennial are just another facet of that upward trend in polarization.
I think the big problem is that there are less stable paths now. Previous generations had a clear path to getting a house, affordable education and stable retirement whereas now you have to take on a lot of debt, gamble in the stock market and have to have some level of luck to retire safely. Any major health expense or company layoff may destroy your well laid-out plans and put you back to zero.
I think today's life is just more stressful. With some luck you can do incredibly well but it can also go the other way big time.
I think today's life is just more stressful. With some luck you can do incredibly well but it can also go the other way big time.
Arguably, Boomer style retirement based on being independently wealthy was/is a fleeting historical oddity. Historically people died young or moved in with family.
"Boomer style retirement based on being independently wealthy was/is a fleeting historical oddity."
It was an illusion that never really materialized for most people.
It was an illusion that never really materialized for most people.
A lot of older people had stable retirement pulled out from underneath them with pension cuts
People are much more specialized in their professions now as well. I might be able to find a relevant job in every city, but in some cities that might be the only employer, and there is no incentive for loyalty toward your employer, and you make much more leveraging your existing salary for a better job at another company than waiting for a raise or title change at your present one. You are so much better off living in a place where you can easily get a new job under a different employer in your field without having to find a new apartment and plan a relocation as well, not to mention being in a larger network and the innumerable opportunities that gives you.
Baby Boomers are directly responsible for all the debt in the country, they invented it to pay for their lavish life styles they couldn’t afford and so they invented debt to kick the can down the road to future generations, and payment has come due. 1950 federal debt was ~$250B now $21T. Credit cards didn’t exist before baby boomers now $19T in consumer debt. Student loans didn’t exist before the boomers, now it’s more than $1T debt. Medicare/Medicaid didn’t exist before the boomer generation, now that’s >$50T in unfounded debt by all estimates.
What a revelation.
As it turns out all this bullshit about millennials not wanting to get married, or own houses, or own a car is manufactured news...and people really do want to have families and own things, only they can’t afford any of those things.
Wow next thing we will hear is millennials are not choosing to be uninsured, but they can’t afford healthcare insurance.
Edit: removed “Medicare/social security” with Medicare/Medicaid...that slip triggered the HN pedantics and in their mind made the remainder of the comment “patently false”
What a revelation.
As it turns out all this bullshit about millennials not wanting to get married, or own houses, or own a car is manufactured news...and people really do want to have families and own things, only they can’t afford any of those things.
Wow next thing we will hear is millennials are not choosing to be uninsured, but they can’t afford healthcare insurance.
Edit: removed “Medicare/social security” with Medicare/Medicaid...that slip triggered the HN pedantics and in their mind made the remainder of the comment “patently false”
> Baby Boomers are directly responsible for all the debt in the country,
Not just that, but the sad state of infrastructure, the condition of the environment, and climate denial. If WWII was the crucible of the greatest generation, then the (relative) peace of the 60s and 70s was the cradle of the worst generation. We (I'm 38) are now inheritors of a pretty messed up world on a very dangerous trajectory. I hope we can muster the courage to face it instead of being led like zombies toward our tech fantasies (myself included).
Not just that, but the sad state of infrastructure, the condition of the environment, and climate denial. If WWII was the crucible of the greatest generation, then the (relative) peace of the 60s and 70s was the cradle of the worst generation. We (I'm 38) are now inheritors of a pretty messed up world on a very dangerous trajectory. I hope we can muster the courage to face it instead of being led like zombies toward our tech fantasies (myself included).
Social Security was founded in 1935, so before boomers ever were born, although it had a different feel from today's program. Social Security is funded (you actually pay taxes for it), but the rest of the government borrows from it quite recklessly which is why republicans want you to believe it's not funded. With simply upping the ceiling on the amount taxed into it we can easily fund it for the foreseeable future. Now of course the right wants you to think otherwise so they can kill the program for future generations but that's just not backed up by facts.
Upping the contribution limit without upping the benefit would just be a hidden tax on the upper middle class, but not the rich, who do not work for salary. If you want to tax the rich, you need to raise the upper tax rates.
It's exactly the opposite of hidden. It literally shows up as a separate item on your taxes. However, I don't think most people actually realize that it's a regressive tax that goes away when you make more money. Though society is at a place where a lot of people don't care if elderly people starve and freeze to death just as long as the upper class get slightly lower tax burdens.
You need to implement social security taxes on investment income, not raising the SS taxable cap on wages, to accomplish this. It makes sense to not overly tax burden wage income (productive effort) while taxing investment income (rent seeking) at a higher rate, no?
I'd just go with adding all income (investment or otherwise) into a total pool and then tax that with a single set of rules instead of this stupidly complex tax system.
It's disingenuous to say that the government borrows from SS. The SSA needs a savings account for its money and the Treasury offers that, though T-Bonds.
It's two sides of the same coin with totally different implications. It's, "I bought a CD." vs. "The bank keeps borrowing from me."
It's two sides of the same coin with totally different implications. It's, "I bought a CD." vs. "The bank keeps borrowing from me."
> Medicare/social security didn’t exist before the boomer generation
Patently false. In the US, Social Security was instituted as part of Roosevelt's New Deal in 1935. From a more global perspective similar systems have been around much longer.
Patently false. In the US, Social Security was instituted as part of Roosevelt's New Deal in 1935. From a more global perspective similar systems have been around much longer.
Sorry Medicare and medicade. It doesn’t matter if similar systems have been around much longer, governments have been around much longer than The US government and none of them are $21T in debt.
The US' national debt was 89% of GDP in 1950. Now it is 104%. [1] I somewhat agree with you (there was a long period in between when the debt-GDP % was much lower), but the current situation isn't as dire as you suggest.
1. https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to...
1. https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to...
Weren't there some expensive wars around that time? I think I'm recalling that correctly.
Seriously, though, a fairer point of comparison might be the late '60s and early '70s - right when Boomers were entering adulthood. National debt as a percentage of GDP was in the 30s around then.
Still, your response to the parent comment is still somewhat justified - yes, national debt is higher now, but it's not like it's orders of magnitude higher, right?
Seriously, though, a fairer point of comparison might be the late '60s and early '70s - right when Boomers were entering adulthood. National debt as a percentage of GDP was in the 30s around then.
Still, your response to the parent comment is still somewhat justified - yes, national debt is higher now, but it's not like it's orders of magnitude higher, right?
Yeah, it's not an unprecedented situation. What's concerning is that we have this level of debt after a period of relative peace and stability. (Though I vaguely recall there being some expensive wars recently too.)
To a first approximation, only foreign-held debt matters
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HBFIGDQ188S
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Composition_of_U.S._Long-...
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HBFIGDQ188S
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Composition_of_U.S._Long-...
>but the current situation isn't as dire as you suggest.
But I didn’t say it was dire, that’s you reading “dire” into facts and numbers, which should be telling.
But I didn’t say it was dire, that’s you reading “dire” into facts and numbers, which should be telling.
You implied that millennials are screwed because boomers incurred too much debt. Sounds pretty dire to me.
I agree with most of this except the part about inventing debt; come on now, debt has existed as a concept far back into human history.
EDIT: Yes all, I understand credit is now more easily available than ever, and I would argue that ease of credit is a substantial problem allowing for the transfer of responsibility to future generations.
@infogulch: I agree with everything you said, but that is not what OP said, and hence, not what I replied to. Internet Talking is hard!
EDIT: Yes all, I understand credit is now more easily available than ever, and I would argue that ease of credit is a substantial problem allowing for the transfer of responsibility to future generations.
@infogulch: I agree with everything you said, but that is not what OP said, and hence, not what I replied to. Internet Talking is hard!
That is absolutely correct, paying back debt has existed nearly as far back as we have recorded history in the form of slavery / indentured servitude.
But, not to put words in OP's mouth, I don't think that's what OP was saying. Baby boomers have normalized the concept of average people using debt to get things they want now but can't afford, and millennials are the first generation that has grown up with it pervasively.
Debt is a powerful tool for enabling opportunities when the decision is highly calculated and considered. For example a business that can directly weigh a break-even point for going into debt to make an investment that would simply have not have been possible otherwise. Or perhaps buying a house (though that is a bit more debatable these days).
When people "just put it on the CC", that debt is not carefully calculated or considered. When people go to college without a path to a career that can pay it back it's also not calculated or considered.
Debt is like a scalpel, but individuals use it like it's a hammer.
But, not to put words in OP's mouth, I don't think that's what OP was saying. Baby boomers have normalized the concept of average people using debt to get things they want now but can't afford, and millennials are the first generation that has grown up with it pervasively.
Debt is a powerful tool for enabling opportunities when the decision is highly calculated and considered. For example a business that can directly weigh a break-even point for going into debt to make an investment that would simply have not have been possible otherwise. Or perhaps buying a house (though that is a bit more debatable these days).
When people "just put it on the CC", that debt is not carefully calculated or considered. When people go to college without a path to a career that can pay it back it's also not calculated or considered.
Debt is like a scalpel, but individuals use it like it's a hammer.
Well in My comment I expressly state the US federal debt was at $250B in 1950, so I know debt existed before baby boomers. My comment really set off the pedantics.
Last evening while we were out to beers, a friend recommended me a book apparently reviewing precisely this history: https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290
Yes, this was the book I was thinking of when I wrote my comment. Do read it, it's fantastic.
Yes, but you couldn't spend it like water until the credit card. And that started with the Diner's Club card in 1950: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diners_Club_International
Yes it has existed before but never so readily available. I believe credit card was first introduced in 1950's and modern mortgages in 1930's.
Sure but what's fair in terms of debt was seriously limited. Now with payday loans all bets are off.
My Great Uncle Joe served in World War II. 4 years tromping around Europe. In his 80's, he still woke up at night, screaming. So his wife would tell us; he never spoke much about that. She lost her first husband, Fred, to the war. Society calls them "The Greatest Generation".
They couldn't have kids. But they ended up running a drive in, where the kids who worked for them became like family. They put more than one through college, and took one in when he needed a home. Decades later, those kids would call and visit them.
Well, those kids may have turned out pretty well. But, generally, I've come to think of those who came after this "Greatest Generation" as "The Selfish Generation".
Really, we're speaking of more than one generation, here. The symbolic touch phrase might come from the 1980's, written in the movie "Wall Street":
Greed is good!
To which I might respond, "Divided we fall."
They couldn't have kids. But they ended up running a drive in, where the kids who worked for them became like family. They put more than one through college, and took one in when he needed a home. Decades later, those kids would call and visit them.
Well, those kids may have turned out pretty well. But, generally, I've come to think of those who came after this "Greatest Generation" as "The Selfish Generation".
Really, we're speaking of more than one generation, here. The symbolic touch phrase might come from the 1980's, written in the movie "Wall Street":
Greed is good!
To which I might respond, "Divided we fall."
As it turns out all this bullshit about millennials not wanting to get married, or own houses, or own a car is manufactured news
Well yes, that is after all a central point made by the article:
“We find little evidence that millennial households have tastes and preference for consumption that are lower than those of earlier generations, once the effects of age, income, and a wide range of demographic characteristics are taken into account,” wrote authors Christopher Kurz, Geng Li and Daniel J. Vine.
Well yes, that is after all a central point made by the article:
“We find little evidence that millennial households have tastes and preference for consumption that are lower than those of earlier generations, once the effects of age, income, and a wide range of demographic characteristics are taken into account,” wrote authors Christopher Kurz, Geng Li and Daniel J. Vine.
How are boomers as a generation of people responsible for the '78 Supreme Court decision to allow national banks to export the interest rate law of their home state into any state where they do business?
Thats what caused the credit card explosion
https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/marquette-inter...
Thats what caused the credit card explosion
https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/marquette-inter...
Credit card debt is a small percentage of overall household debt.
> they invented it to pay for their lavish life styles they couldn’t afford
Debit does not work that way over the entire economy. It can change the distribution of wealth, it can incentive people to act differently, it can change the cost of transactions. But it can not anticipate future wealth.
Debit does not work that way over the entire economy. It can change the distribution of wealth, it can incentive people to act differently, it can change the cost of transactions. But it can not anticipate future wealth.
seems like a generalization to say 'baby boomers directly responsible for...' How do you consign direct responsibility to a group of people only tied together by their year of birth? Are you sure you are not yourself unconsciously kicking the can down the road through some horrid act or inaction on your part?
The argument is that the baby boomers, by being a demographic bulge, have a relatively large electoral influence and so over time government policies have been disproportionately targeted to their changing needs.
While 'directly responsible' is a bit of a stretch, at least in the UK voting preferences are currently quite correlated with age (though this hasn't always been the case). Because the current crop of older people are much more likely to vote than younger people, the political parties have made various commitments to protect and increase social security for pensioners. These pensioners are of the same generation that had free education in the 60/70s and then voted for tax cuts in the 80s when they were earning, of course.
Yes it is a generalisation, it's far from the only factor that determines policies and the demographic bulge isn't as pronounced in the UK as it is in the US but I still think it's interesting to see how government policies have changed to follow the bulge as it ages. Of course, many baby boomers will tell you that they paid taxes all their lives, thank you very much, and had mortgage rates of 25% etc etc etc.
While 'directly responsible' is a bit of a stretch, at least in the UK voting preferences are currently quite correlated with age (though this hasn't always been the case). Because the current crop of older people are much more likely to vote than younger people, the political parties have made various commitments to protect and increase social security for pensioners. These pensioners are of the same generation that had free education in the 60/70s and then voted for tax cuts in the 80s when they were earning, of course.
Yes it is a generalisation, it's far from the only factor that determines policies and the demographic bulge isn't as pronounced in the UK as it is in the US but I still think it's interesting to see how government policies have changed to follow the bulge as it ages. Of course, many baby boomers will tell you that they paid taxes all their lives, thank you very much, and had mortgage rates of 25% etc etc etc.
It's painful to see that younger people are worse off - poorer and life expectancy I see is down again. I thought we were trying to give our children a better life? How did we become so narcissistic that we don't even want to make future generations better off?
Everyone is trying to give their children a better life, not everyone else's children a better life.
Propping up housing prices and NIMBYism isn't trying to give your offspring a better life.
I guess by some math they would leave the house to the kids, but that will be when the Boomers are ideally 80 and their kids are already grandparents. Assuming the wealth isn't spent on end of life care (it will be).
I guess by some math they would leave the house to the kids, but that will be when the Boomers are ideally 80 and their kids are already grandparents. Assuming the wealth isn't spent on end of life care (it will be).
A lot of people seem to think that withholding vaccines and using low fuel efficiency SUVs to transport their kids is giving them a better life, I don't have much hope of them considering broader economic outcomes. But they will sacrifice others' outcome (not to their face though) if they think it will further theirs even a little bit.
Yes, many boomers in my family always moan "Why do I have to pay for someone else's kid to go to college? Why do I have to pay for someone else to get health insurance?"
I think it's largely related to the housing bubble. House prices have risen sharply in the last few decades and more people buy houses as investment.
Why would you not buy a house as an investment? If you aren't looking to get a return you might as well rent and have your hands away from the duties and risks of property ownership.
> If you aren't looking to get a return you might as well rent and have your hands away from the duties and risks of property ownership.
A couple moves forced by landlords deciding to move in or sell the property to people looking to remodel and flip and you might discover non-investment value to owning your residence.
(Renting comes with those and many other risks; essentially all the duties of ownership are risks—risk that the landlord will fail the duty—for renters. Unless the lease terms transferred to the duty to the renter, then they are just duties.)
A couple moves forced by landlords deciding to move in or sell the property to people looking to remodel and flip and you might discover non-investment value to owning your residence.
(Renting comes with those and many other risks; essentially all the duties of ownership are risks—risk that the landlord will fail the duty—for renters. Unless the lease terms transferred to the duty to the renter, then they are just duties.)
I guess it comes down to what considerations you value more. Personally, I'd still take the instability because I value the flexibility much more at this point in my life.
Sure, people have different priorities; I'm just saying that the idea that the only reason one might prefer ownership is investment value is missing a lot.
Current life expectancy data is plagued by the recent increase in drug overdoses and suicides. Not saying that there isn't a problem or that we don't need to fix those issues, but aside from those life expectancy is doing fine
I wouldn't say that. Per TFA on the subject that also reached the front page the decrease is 0.3yr. I wouldn't call that "plagued".
> life expectancy I see is down again
Is the part I was responding to.
Is the part I was responding to.
IMO:
* Capitalism naturally leads to growing wealth concentration/inequality over time, especially when combined with automation and globalization
* People say “one person being richer doesn’t make you poorer”, but that’s BS. When people compete for scarce resources, i.e. homes in cities, the wealthy can outbid the middle class constantly
* I think that home ownership in cities becoming unaffordable for the middle class is mostly a result of the wealthy gobbling up property
I don’t think there was an intentional “fuck our kids” push from boomers, this is just the natural result of unchecked capitalism and growing wealth inequality. It won’t be reversed until we do something to REDUCE wealth inequality, which I don’t see happening any time soon. If wealth inequality keeps increasing, of course desirable scarce resources will be increasingly owned by the ever-wealthier upper class.
* Capitalism naturally leads to growing wealth concentration/inequality over time, especially when combined with automation and globalization
* People say “one person being richer doesn’t make you poorer”, but that’s BS. When people compete for scarce resources, i.e. homes in cities, the wealthy can outbid the middle class constantly
* I think that home ownership in cities becoming unaffordable for the middle class is mostly a result of the wealthy gobbling up property
I don’t think there was an intentional “fuck our kids” push from boomers, this is just the natural result of unchecked capitalism and growing wealth inequality. It won’t be reversed until we do something to REDUCE wealth inequality, which I don’t see happening any time soon. If wealth inequality keeps increasing, of course desirable scarce resources will be increasingly owned by the ever-wealthier upper class.
Who is "we"? "we" do, but the people in power - the government, the big corporations, shareholders - don't have those priorities. And I won't claim to be better than them, because I don't have their perspective on the world.
I always find it a bit strange when people pit generations against one another. It's common to find articles complaining about millennial, I also often see young people online complaining about how "baby boomers ruined everything".
I mean, do we seriously believe that if we magically swapped these generations around things would've gone massively differently? I know that Americans put the individual first and foremost but I have absolutely no doubt that the current generation would have done mostly exactly the same mistakes if we had been born a few decades earlier. And similarly I'm pretty sure that my grandmother would be wasting her time on Instagram or playing Fortnite if she was born today. Does anybody really believe otherwise?
It's such a ridiculous thing to do. It's not like you can chose when you're born. It's just a way to deflect your own problems onto other people while at the same time not proposing anything constructive to move forward.
I mean, do we seriously believe that if we magically swapped these generations around things would've gone massively differently? I know that Americans put the individual first and foremost but I have absolutely no doubt that the current generation would have done mostly exactly the same mistakes if we had been born a few decades earlier. And similarly I'm pretty sure that my grandmother would be wasting her time on Instagram or playing Fortnite if she was born today. Does anybody really believe otherwise?
It's such a ridiculous thing to do. It's not like you can chose when you're born. It's just a way to deflect your own problems onto other people while at the same time not proposing anything constructive to move forward.
Thinking that entire generations of people are really different at their core is fallacious, but looking at their behaviors and indications of differences in the system they operate inside seems valid to me.
While the article itself is talking specifically about spending habits on physical goods vs 'experiences', the subject line could be better worded.
IMHO Millenials tend to be more aware of their financial weakness at a younger age relative to their older cohorts, thus resulting in more risk adverse behavior.
IMHO Millenials tend to be more aware of their financial weakness at a younger age relative to their older cohorts, thus resulting in more risk adverse behavior.
> As a caveat, spending on avocado toast wasn’t specifically tracked for this analysis.
We need an Avocado Toast Index to track consumption patterns across generations to go along with the Big Mac Index that tracks purchase parity across countries.
We need an Avocado Toast Index to track consumption patterns across generations to go along with the Big Mac Index that tracks purchase parity across countries.
But isn't the fact that they are just like their parents exactly the problem ?
The GDP of the United States has more than doubled since the 80's, so how is it that millenials are as "poor" as their parents ?
Wages/GDP Graph may have something to do with it. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=2Xa
"Housing and food are two areas where millennials have spent less than previous generations." Spending less on food I would believe; we have tremendous abundance and it's inexpensive relative to everything else. Housing, though? That...doesn't seem correct, unless they're including in the calculation millennials who live with their family and pay nothing for housing. Can anyone point to a reference that backs up the claim that millennials are paying less for housing than the prior generation?
Guesswork here, but it might be possible due to a selection effect.
If you can obtain a mortgage, you are more likely to (be willing to) spend more on that mortgage than you would on the rent for a number of reasons.
Anecdotally, I see people attempting to spend as little as possible on flatshares because they don't think they'll ever have a high enough income to bother with that, so they don't save either, and just enjoy themselves with the money left over (spending as little time at home as possible).
If you can obtain a mortgage, you are more likely to (be willing to) spend more on that mortgage than you would on the rent for a number of reasons.
Anecdotally, I see people attempting to spend as little as possible on flatshares because they don't think they'll ever have a high enough income to bother with that, so they don't save either, and just enjoy themselves with the money left over (spending as little time at home as possible).
I don't have a reference, but it doesn't sound far-fetched to me. Student loans eat a lot of money that could be spent on housing, and also lots of people have roommates to lower their housing cost.
That's not true--millennials are also far more depressed.
[deleted]
I wonder how much of this is permanent and how much of this is related to the fact that millennials came of age in the worst recession since the Great Depression? Maybe millennials will bounce back over the next 10 years, as boomers retire and assuming the economy doesn't suffer another catastrophe.
It's good to see a study that quantifies what we have suspected for a while now: millennials aren't doing as well as their parents were at any given age. This is why certain "life thresholds" such as getting married or buying a house are delayed, sometimes significantly.
The annoying thing is that this is typically blamed on imaginary negative traits that millennials possess, such as laziness or spite borne out of feelings of entitlement. Whereas the fact is that Boomers had it really, really good, having grown up during an age of unprecedented growth, especially in contrast to the rest of the developed world, which was recovering from World War 2. That's the main reason they have done so well economically: America's rising tide has lifted all their boats. Unfortunately, this has come at the expense of subsequent generations, who now have to live with, and pay, their debt.
The annoying thing is that this is typically blamed on imaginary negative traits that millennials possess, such as laziness or spite borne out of feelings of entitlement. Whereas the fact is that Boomers had it really, really good, having grown up during an age of unprecedented growth, especially in contrast to the rest of the developed world, which was recovering from World War 2. That's the main reason they have done so well economically: America's rising tide has lifted all their boats. Unfortunately, this has come at the expense of subsequent generations, who now have to live with, and pay, their debt.
Or on average they stayed in school longer than their parents, which tends to delay everything, including high earnings years.
Maybe, but it's worth noting that college is tremendously more expensive today than it was back when Boomers were attending it. We're talking an order of magnitude or more.
edit: not multiple orders of magnitude
edit: not multiple orders of magnitude
also, more people are attending college. College didn't used to be something everyone went to. With the proliferation of student loans, universities have no reason to keep fees down.
Living wage jobs are much harder to secure without a college degree, full stop. I read a headline today that in the Inland Empire, 50% of jobs do not pay a living wage.
enraged_camel says>"college is tremendously more expensive today than it was back when Boomers were attending it..."
Especially when you're
- unable to understand cumulative interest (slept in math class),
- unwilling to take advantage of cheaper state and community colleges and trade schools,
- unwilling to avoid careers with little to no viable economic future (women's studies, fine arts, politics, history, English,etc.).
Especially when you're
- unable to understand cumulative interest (slept in math class),
- unwilling to take advantage of cheaper state and community colleges and trade schools,
- unwilling to avoid careers with little to no viable economic future (women's studies, fine arts, politics, history, English,etc.).
Multiple orders of magnitude? So 100x or 1000x?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
> who now have to live with, and pay, their debt.
No you don’t. You don’t have to pay your parents debts. Not sure what “debt” you are referring to?
No you don’t. You don’t have to pay your parents debts. Not sure what “debt” you are referring to?
"No you don’t. You don’t have to pay your parents debts. Not sure what “debt” you are referring to?"
I can think of lots of debts that boomers incurred that will need to be paid (or absorbed) by subsequent generations.
- A vietnam war whose costs changed our economy and lead to the end of the dollars convertibility.
- A transition to urban life without investment in public transportation leading to a half century of malinvestment and disjointed transport infrastructure.
- Failure to invest the time and thought into learning how to eat and walk when you don't live on the farm anymore. Three square meals a day combined with driving everywhere has lead to an obesity and diabetic crisis.
I can think of lots of debts that boomers incurred that will need to be paid (or absorbed) by subsequent generations.
- A vietnam war whose costs changed our economy and lead to the end of the dollars convertibility.
- A transition to urban life without investment in public transportation leading to a half century of malinvestment and disjointed transport infrastructure.
- Failure to invest the time and thought into learning how to eat and walk when you don't live on the farm anymore. Three square meals a day combined with driving everywhere has lead to an obesity and diabetic crisis.
None of that is debt. You didn’t pay anything for the Vietnam war, and I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about urbanization and driving, but it has nothing to do with debt.
Is it just me or does the article provide zero evidence that Millennials are poorer? The graph is just spending, not income.
They reference this paper: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2018080pap...
Compulsory xkdc on the concept of jouvenoya: https://xkcd.com/1227/
Average expenditure at 30: $45,000
That's strange to me - is everyone living on debt? Factor in median household income for a fam with Bachelors degrees: $68,728, which is $52,000ish net of tax.
How are people spending that much?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
That's strange to me - is everyone living on debt? Factor in median household income for a fam with Bachelors degrees: $68,728, which is $52,000ish net of tax.
How are people spending that much?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
"Millennials spend huge amounts on rent, using up 45% of income made by age 30"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-es...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-es...
"GenX adults spent only 41% of their income on rent by age 30"
Doesn't seem out of line with the previous generation?
Doesn't seem out of line with the previous generation?
The majority of individuals and households spend all of their money. That's the 'how'.
The more salient question is 'why'.
The more salient question is 'why'.
I'm guessing it's mean average, so probably being skewed by higher spenders. It's also household numbers, so even more skewed if you have two high income people living together vs two low income living together.
That may be the spending on education. That is mostly debt.
Where do you live? Here in Chicago that's a pretty reasonable amount of spending for my family of 2.
You're comparing average expenditure with people with a bachelor's degree - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_... indicates only about a quarter of people have that (it's a bit hard to read).
People are in debt yeah. I lucked out but I know a lot of people with student debt.
Will the generation that comes after millennials be even poorer?
I feel like that is a given based on what I have been seeing right now. If people are already redlining spending/debt without savings any financial leg up that they can provide their children is that much less. If anything I am anticipating a decline in people pursuing college as those children who see lives defined by student debt as just not worth it, but the current jobs market does not have a ton of high paying positions for high school educated workers. In a sense because I have education and specialist skills I feel like I am part of the group pulling up the ladder behind me when it comes to knowledge work.
If the next generation is even net poorer the property asset appreciation train might finally crash though, and I'm of mixed opinion if that is going to have a net good outcome, or if the front is going to fall off two generations from now.
If the next generation is even net poorer the property asset appreciation train might finally crash though, and I'm of mixed opinion if that is going to have a net good outcome, or if the front is going to fall off two generations from now.
That's really our only hope at this point.
Millenials are killing everything. Except the economy. Boomers killed that.
Please keep tedious generational flamewars off HN.
Don't forget environment.
But they leave very nice government debt behind, so millenials have something to solve after they pay out their student ones and pay boomers pensions.
Or perhaps the Neoliberal policies that are hard at work dismantling all the social safety nets that gave people hope and encouraged them to take risk without fearing that failure implies total ruin.
Boomers made the economy grow incredibly and had some busts along the way. They got up and kept going. The boomers are the most creative and productive American generation period.
Millenials are still living with their (wealthy) boomer parents, delaying marriage and waiting for their boomer parents to die, whereupon the millenials will inherit their boomer parents' wealth. Unfortunately this will fail, b/c millenials have neither a work ethic nor a saving ethic. In the end, they'll spend their parents money and the US economy will flat-line.
Millenials are still living with their (wealthy) boomer parents, delaying marriage and waiting for their boomer parents to die, whereupon the millenials will inherit their boomer parents' wealth. Unfortunately this will fail, b/c millenials have neither a work ethic nor a saving ethic. In the end, they'll spend their parents money and the US economy will flat-line.
It's a real shame that boomers weren't creative or intelligent enough to prevent issues related to automobiles and climate change. It's also a shame they didn't come up with a decent fix for Social Security that will only benefit their generation and no one after.
Don't forget to go take your meds, Grandpa.
Actually, we're one of the most financially paranoid generations in history. Thanks for that by the way.
Please keep tedious generational flamewars off HN.
Gonna need a citation on that one there, philo
Sorry but I kinda disagree. I'm a Millennial with Baby Boomer parents and I'm definitely not poorer than them. No, I wasn't born rich, but I'm definitely earning more than my parents. Okay, maybe not as much as my Mom but this article is such BS. It all just depends from person to person you know. I hate it when generations always crap on millennials like we're the worse thing that's happened in the world. Have you met the teenagers? The young millennials? No? Well there you have it.
If you're doing anything related to software for a living and live in the US, you're not representative of the average American.
I'm not making anywhere near as much as I could be in software development right now and yet I'm making significantly more than the average household income in the US, just by myself (not including my girlfriend that lives and shares bills with me).
Also it's all relative. The types of jobs my parents worked were both middle-lower class jobs and we struggled at times to make ends meet. I ended up in one of the higher paying fields out there, so it makes sense that I make more than they did.
Comparatively, a good friend of mine's dad is a lawyer, but my friend is a teacher in the Pacific Islands (he studied for and tried being a lawyer for awhile, but his wanderlust got the better of him). He's making significantly less than his family did.
I'm not making anywhere near as much as I could be in software development right now and yet I'm making significantly more than the average household income in the US, just by myself (not including my girlfriend that lives and shares bills with me).
Also it's all relative. The types of jobs my parents worked were both middle-lower class jobs and we struggled at times to make ends meet. I ended up in one of the higher paying fields out there, so it makes sense that I make more than they did.
Comparatively, a good friend of mine's dad is a lawyer, but my friend is a teacher in the Pacific Islands (he studied for and tried being a lawyer for awhile, but his wanderlust got the better of him). He's making significantly less than his family did.
Welcome to statics. You are a tail.
Am I missing something?