In Their 20s, Struggling to Save and Tired of Being Lectured About It(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
In Their 20s, Struggling to Save and Tired of Being Lectured About It
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/20/business/saving-money-inflation-economy.html
130 comments
> The first example is a junior level social worker -- that's fine, but come now: we all know that social work is not a high-paying industry.
This is an unfair dismissal. Most industries are not high paying, therefore most workers are not earning enough to save. You're basically saying "they're not saving because they're not earning more!" Also, what is your proposed solution here? To stop having social workers?
> someone with three jobs, who still manages to save $200 a month!
Saving $200 a month is basically nothing, especially in NYC. It would take multiple years just to save a few months worth of rent.
This is an unfair dismissal. Most industries are not high paying, therefore most workers are not earning enough to save. You're basically saying "they're not saving because they're not earning more!" Also, what is your proposed solution here? To stop having social workers?
> someone with three jobs, who still manages to save $200 a month!
Saving $200 a month is basically nothing, especially in NYC. It would take multiple years just to save a few months worth of rent.
> Also, what is your proposed solution here? To stop having social workers?
Training for a job that pays below what you need to live comfortably is a choice. You may feel passionate enough about that job that you are willing to accept the consequences of a low salary. If you are not, then you should not train to do that job.
I do sympathize, as it's essentially impossible for a 16- or 17-year-old to fully understand the lifetime ramifications of the profession they're about to choose.
But if people stopped making dangerous financial compromises to take jobs they are passionate about, then those jobs will either have to get funded more such that the salaries go up, or yes, they'll cease to exist.
I think social work is a job that's extremely valuable to society, so I would hope that, in the face of a shortage (due to people not wanting to take the job because of low pay), legislatures and whatnot would vote to fund it more. But that's up to communities to decide.
> Saving $200 a month is basically nothing, especially in NYC.
The woman who saves $200/mo (the article actually says $200-$300/mo, so it's a bit better, even) lives in Bensenville, Illinois.
Training for a job that pays below what you need to live comfortably is a choice. You may feel passionate enough about that job that you are willing to accept the consequences of a low salary. If you are not, then you should not train to do that job.
I do sympathize, as it's essentially impossible for a 16- or 17-year-old to fully understand the lifetime ramifications of the profession they're about to choose.
But if people stopped making dangerous financial compromises to take jobs they are passionate about, then those jobs will either have to get funded more such that the salaries go up, or yes, they'll cease to exist.
I think social work is a job that's extremely valuable to society, so I would hope that, in the face of a shortage (due to people not wanting to take the job because of low pay), legislatures and whatnot would vote to fund it more. But that's up to communities to decide.
> Saving $200 a month is basically nothing, especially in NYC.
The woman who saves $200/mo (the article actually says $200-$300/mo, so it's a bit better, even) lives in Bensenville, Illinois.
I think the pertinent question is do we just stop having social workers?
They provide essential services, you're focusing too much on the choice to do something that pays a lot vs choice to do something you're passionate about
How about the choice to do something that simply needs to be done?
They provide essential services, you're focusing too much on the choice to do something that pays a lot vs choice to do something you're passionate about
How about the choice to do something that simply needs to be done?
Under the current circumstances, if someone chooses to do a job because they find it socially important then they won’t have much leverage to bargain for better pay.
If there are people who will todo your job for the amount of money you find unacceptable, you will have a hard time bargaining for more money.
We, the people who pay for social worker through taxes, must be willing to pay them more. AND the social workers must be willing to walk away if their own needs aren’t being met.
If there are people who will todo your job for the amount of money you find unacceptable, you will have a hard time bargaining for more money.
We, the people who pay for social worker through taxes, must be willing to pay them more. AND the social workers must be willing to walk away if their own needs aren’t being met.
> But if people stopped making dangerous financial compromises to take jobs they are passionate about, then those jobs will either have to get funded more such that the salaries go up, or yes, they'll cease to exist.
If a "passion" is common enough, it will get systematically exploited by employers.
If a "passion" is common enough, it will get systematically exploited by employers.
How is it exploitation to pay market wage if it’s well above minimum wage?
Because minimum wage is well below what it should be if you want to consider it as the line for what is and isn't exploitive.
Like any industry social work has a ladder and options including getting licensed as an lcsw and doing more profitable private therapy or even being head of hospital departments or other administration tasks. You certainly have the lower paying end as well but no it’s not a poverty guarantee.
> Training for a job that pays below what you need to live comfortably is a choice. You may feel passionate enough about that job that you are willing to accept the consequences of a low salary. If you are not, then you should not train to do that job.
My problem with this is that there are a lot of jobs in the US that are important (physical therapists, speech language pathologists, some nursing positions, pharmacy techs, educators) that are getting to be not worth paying for the training. You don't make enough to money to pay it back.
And I want people to choose to do those jobs. :)
My problem with this is that there are a lot of jobs in the US that are important (physical therapists, speech language pathologists, some nursing positions, pharmacy techs, educators) that are getting to be not worth paying for the training. You don't make enough to money to pay it back.
And I want people to choose to do those jobs. :)
I'm not dismissing the person. I'm saying: if the author's purpose is to generalize from this example to all 20-somethings, it's obviously biased. Placing this example first was an editorial decision, and it's designed to elicit sympathy. Imagine if the author had led with the 28-year old NYC resident who saves 2k a month.
Also, I just want to add: I'm not engaging you in a debate about whether or not social workers "should" be paid more. I don't run the world.
Also, I just want to add: I'm not engaging you in a debate about whether or not social workers "should" be paid more. I don't run the world.
$40,000 is an above-average income for a 22-year-old in America. If anything they should have picked someone who made less if they wanted to generalize to all 20-somethings.
> Also, what is your proposed solution here? To stop having social workers?
Reduce expenses to live within your means, or figure out how to earn more money. The plight of... every person on earth
Reduce expenses to live within your means, or figure out how to earn more money. The plight of... every person on earth
>Reduce expenses to live within your means
Which is cool until the point that rents take up 100% of your income and then you're screwed.
Let's imagine a world where almost everyone makes $7 an hour. You would expect pricing in the world to reflect that and housing to fit in that budget.
But now in that world you create a small percentage of people that can print as much money as they want. These people that print as much money also have a terrible problem as they are completely greedy and always want more. You'd expect the first outcome of this situation to be asset inflation. The behavior of the greedy would be to buy up as many 'real' assets with their fake money as quickly as possible. Eventually the behaviors of the people earning $7 simply don't matter. The greedy will extract as much wealth as possible and drive up costs beyond the point of survival until a significant portion of the population is tossing the other half of the population in to guillotines.
It is important to keep income inequality under control if you want a stable society (that's not a police state).
Which is cool until the point that rents take up 100% of your income and then you're screwed.
Let's imagine a world where almost everyone makes $7 an hour. You would expect pricing in the world to reflect that and housing to fit in that budget.
But now in that world you create a small percentage of people that can print as much money as they want. These people that print as much money also have a terrible problem as they are completely greedy and always want more. You'd expect the first outcome of this situation to be asset inflation. The behavior of the greedy would be to buy up as many 'real' assets with their fake money as quickly as possible. Eventually the behaviors of the people earning $7 simply don't matter. The greedy will extract as much wealth as possible and drive up costs beyond the point of survival until a significant portion of the population is tossing the other half of the population in to guillotines.
It is important to keep income inequality under control if you want a stable society (that's not a police state).
True, but many people look back and say “back in the day people could do X” and cherry pick.
What they ignore is how long people lived at home for, how many people jumped immediately into marriage. This whole business of everyone having their own place is not sustainable, despite what we see in TV.
What they ignore is how long people lived at home for, how many people jumped immediately into marriage. This whole business of everyone having their own place is not sustainable, despite what we see in TV.
Interesting thing I learned during the pandemic: There are actually countries where more people live alone than in the United States. In particular, in Sweden, the vast majority of all unattached adults, even young ones, live alone, without roommates. So, I have to push back against the idea that a permanent housing shortage forcing people into multi-person living arrangements is the natural default.
> Reduce expenses to live within your means, or figure out how to earn more money.
This means "stop having social workers".
You can only reduce expenses so far, and the easiest way to earn more money is to get a new job.
This means "stop having social workers".
You can only reduce expenses so far, and the easiest way to earn more money is to get a new job.
Unions & collective bargaining is another option - depending on the profit margins of the companies involved.
Basically, if social workers collectively refused to work for the current pay, either social work would be eliminated (unlikely), or pay would rise - either through government subsidies, or at the expense of profit margins.
Basically, if social workers collectively refused to work for the current pay, either social work would be eliminated (unlikely), or pay would rise - either through government subsidies, or at the expense of profit margins.
True. I wonder if social workers would find themselves in the "not allowed to strike" group of government employees.
A lot of social workers are not government employees, there are a bunch of private counseling practices, NGOs, and hospital systems and the like that employ social workers as well. (I’m only familiar with the situation in the US)
But I think your point stands even aside from any regulatory specifics. Asking social workers to strike for better wages is essentially asking some of the most vulnerable in our society (e.g. kids in the foster system) to bear the brunt of our collective underinvestment in meeting their needs. I think that’s less acceptable of an impact compared to stressing out some BigCorp’s bottom line in the case of Amazon or Starbucks and similar
But I think your point stands even aside from any regulatory specifics. Asking social workers to strike for better wages is essentially asking some of the most vulnerable in our society (e.g. kids in the foster system) to bear the brunt of our collective underinvestment in meeting their needs. I think that’s less acceptable of an impact compared to stressing out some BigCorp’s bottom line in the case of Amazon or Starbucks and similar
"I don't want to see you, I don't want to hear from you."
People in the US seem to just hate poor people
You're too kind. It's not hate. It's contempt.
I've decided that many Americans believe that the definition of "freedom" is "freedom from having to even think about people who are outside of my family/social group". The homeless person on the street isn't a tragedy because human beings shouldn't have to sleep on the street, it's a tragedy because I have to see it and think about it.
I've decided that many Americans believe that the definition of "freedom" is "freedom from having to even think about people who are outside of my family/social group". The homeless person on the street isn't a tragedy because human beings shouldn't have to sleep on the street, it's a tragedy because I have to see it and think about it.
Saving $200 a month just means you won't have to go into debt when you need to hire a plumber or auto mechanic or have a very-minor, insured ER visit.
[EDIT] Assuming you don't have more than ~2 such urgent expenses per year, that is. And none worse than that.
[EDIT] Assuming you don't have more than ~2 such urgent expenses per year, that is. And none worse than that.
I have I think good insurance. It still asks for $350 for an ER visit.
This is probably off topic, but I would gladly pay a few more $$ in taxes to have social workers have pay equity with other professionals.
Don't most government jobs have a great benefits plan including 401k with matching and the ability to have loans dismissed?
Someone with the skills to be a social worker, on average, can use those skills for higher paid work.
They are knowingly trading the good feeling they get when helping people for the cash they could get by being a cold capitalist. You can make the argument social workers should be paid more but probably not the argument the person is employed in the highest saving ability profession they could reasonably hope to work in.
They are knowingly trading the good feeling they get when helping people for the cash they could get by being a cold capitalist. You can make the argument social workers should be paid more but probably not the argument the person is employed in the highest saving ability profession they could reasonably hope to work in.
What are all the capitalists going to do if everybody wants to go for the big bucks and not do things like social work, nursing and many other jobs? Society is seriously f...ed up if it's ok to exploit people who do a valuable job for society and only selfishness gets rewarded.
Same for entrepreneurs. What are the genius billionaires going to do if nobody wants to work for them and everybody wants to be an entrepreneur? We need to reward all kinds of useful jobs and not have all reward go to the sociopaths at the top.
Same for entrepreneurs. What are the genius billionaires going to do if nobody wants to work for them and everybody wants to be an entrepreneur? We need to reward all kinds of useful jobs and not have all reward go to the sociopaths at the top.
If nobody does at the current wage, then wages will have to rise to meet supply/demand.
As it stands individuals see the good feels as part of their wages. Otherwise they would do something higher paying. IF nobody does the job because the good feels does nothing for them then they'll have to start paying as much as the cold capitalist job.
As it stands individuals see the good feels as part of their wages. Otherwise they would do something higher paying. IF nobody does the job because the good feels does nothing for them then they'll have to start paying as much as the cold capitalist job.
Yes, that's how it works. Certainly nobody would just complain loudly that "Nobody wants to work anymore!" and demand more suffering for the people at the bottom of society.
It would be an interesting experiment if we fired all the social workers and gave the money of the salary and all the overhead of those programs directly to the poor, and compare the outcomes.
Would you give that money to the abused/neglected kids that social workers protect, or the parents that are abusing/neglecting them?
Who would be in charge of identifying who gets that money and managing the systems that distribute that money and would they get paid more than the social workers that got fired?
Who would be in charge of identifying who gets that money and managing the systems that distribute that money and would they get paid more than the social workers that got fired?
I would do a negative income tax basically at the lowest earnings (that is they basically get graduated credits). I'd simplify the tax code so we'd only need half the IRS or less and then repurpose some of them to making sure the negative income tax is refunded. Unemancipated children would not be included in the refund.
My prediction is especially neglect but also abuse are often symptoms of poverty and insufficient economic security. I do not believe economically starving the parents is somehow going to help the neglect of overburdened parents, but I can respect some possible hints that may be drawn from your question. My belief is the number of kids saved through such a measure would outdo the number the social workers would have saved. But that is just a theory.
My prediction is especially neglect but also abuse are often symptoms of poverty and insufficient economic security. I do not believe economically starving the parents is somehow going to help the neglect of overburdened parents, but I can respect some possible hints that may be drawn from your question. My belief is the number of kids saved through such a measure would outdo the number the social workers would have saved. But that is just a theory.
Is nobody else going to tell this guy that the earned income tax credit already exists?
Yes, because statistically valid studies are cheap and don't require highly-trained professionals.
Your argument ignores the fact that people need to work at every point in their adult life unless they're privileged enough to have someone subsidize their existence. There is a large group of people in society who only have low paying work available to them with their current set of skills. Without being able to save, they don't have the means to acquire new skills. So they're quite literally trapped in low paying jobs.
Also, I think you're too hung up on "social work = good feels." Do fast food workers get good feels from their work?
Also, I think you're too hung up on "social work = good feels." Do fast food workers get good feels from their work?
You don't have the opinion social workers have the skills to obtain higher paid work? How do you have such low opinion of social workers that you find their skills non-transferable and even compare their skill level to that of fast food workers? This is a pretty uncharitable view of the skilled people helping our more vulnerable elements of society.
And as an aside, very few people deliberately take a reduced fast food wage in the goal of helping others whereas a large number of our skilled and caring social workers knowingly entered social work knowing their college education could be used for higher paying endeavors.
And as an aside, very few people deliberately take a reduced fast food wage in the goal of helping others whereas a large number of our skilled and caring social workers knowingly entered social work knowing their college education could be used for higher paying endeavors.
I'm not comparing social workers to fast food workers. I'm saying there are other low-paid jobs in addition to social work.
And I would be very curious to hear some suggestions for jobs a social worker could get without any additional training that pay better than social work. NYC requires posting salaries in job openings, so with a suggested job alternative, we can easily find if there are many job openings for the new line of work and whether or not the job would pay materially better than social work.
And I would be very curious to hear some suggestions for jobs a social worker could get without any additional training that pay better than social work. NYC requires posting salaries in job openings, so with a suggested job alternative, we can easily find if there are many job openings for the new line of work and whether or not the job would pay materially better than social work.
If your position is they're literally getting the highest amount possible they could, even more than they could in private cold capitalist industries they're qualified for, then it's kind of crazy to characterize them as being the victims of sub-market pay. They're the market makers in that case at the top of their skill pyramid!
Which leads me to my response:
>What are all the capitalists going to do if everybody wants to go for the big bucks and not do things like social work, nursing and many other jobs?
Well if what rcme says is true, they're being paid the top dollar of anybody with their skills... that kind of answers the question. They're at the biggest buck profession they can get (remember rcme thesis is they don't have the resources to retrain or whatever) therefore the profession will still exist.
Which leads me to my response:
>What are all the capitalists going to do if everybody wants to go for the big bucks and not do things like social work, nursing and many other jobs?
Well if what rcme says is true, they're being paid the top dollar of anybody with their skills... that kind of answers the question. They're at the biggest buck profession they can get (remember rcme thesis is they don't have the resources to retrain or whatever) therefore the profession will still exist.
This feels a lot like the lectures these people are tired of. "Why didn't you pick a higher-paying career, why did you go to college if you couldn't afford it, why not cut out all unnecessary expenses and stop seeing your friends".
Yes, all these people could probably make different choices to save a bit more money, but a) min-maxing life like that sucks, and b) most people constantly giving this advice didn't do that themselves. Is there a single person in America who:
1. At 17 years old ignored every single adult in their life and wisely chose to go to trade school instead of college because their 30-year projections of their own life showed loans might be too much of a burden
2. Stifled all personal ambition and passion and chose a career with the most objective earning potential
3. Cut off all friendships and moved to the lowest cost-of-living area where they could still find a job
4. Lived like an ascetic hermit until they had a large enough emergency fund in the bank
The answer is no, this person does not exist, if they did they would be miserable, and nobody wants to live in a world where this lifestyle is necessary for an average person to feel financially comfortable.
Edit: Also, when you describe $40,000 as a "low income", are you aware that the median income for a 20-24 year old is less than that?
Yes, all these people could probably make different choices to save a bit more money, but a) min-maxing life like that sucks, and b) most people constantly giving this advice didn't do that themselves. Is there a single person in America who:
1. At 17 years old ignored every single adult in their life and wisely chose to go to trade school instead of college because their 30-year projections of their own life showed loans might be too much of a burden
2. Stifled all personal ambition and passion and chose a career with the most objective earning potential
3. Cut off all friendships and moved to the lowest cost-of-living area where they could still find a job
4. Lived like an ascetic hermit until they had a large enough emergency fund in the bank
The answer is no, this person does not exist, if they did they would be miserable, and nobody wants to live in a world where this lifestyle is necessary for an average person to feel financially comfortable.
Edit: Also, when you describe $40,000 as a "low income", are you aware that the median income for a 20-24 year old is less than that?
I am certain that people who want to read an article with this title are convinced that life has dealt them an unfair hand, and are willing to ignore or dismiss every example to the contrary.
...as this author has almost systematically done. It's not really a "lecture" when I'm just re-stating the facts in the story, is it?
...as this author has almost systematically done. It's not really a "lecture" when I'm just re-stating the facts in the story, is it?
> It's not really a "lecture" when I'm just re-stating the facts in the story, is it?
If that was indeed what you were doing, no. But that was not what you were doing.
If that was indeed what you were doing, no. But that was not what you were doing.
>I am certain that people who want to read an article with this title are convinced that life has dealt them an unfair hand, and are willing to ignore or dismiss every example to the contrary.
Wow, this is unrealistically antagonistic. I think you need some qualifiers somewhere in that assertion. Anybody who simply "wants to read an article with this title"? Every example to the contrary?
Wow, this is unrealistically antagonistic. I think you need some qualifiers somewhere in that assertion. Anybody who simply "wants to read an article with this title"? Every example to the contrary?
The person you're replying to did not say "anybody". They said "people". In conversational English, the phrasing you quoted is not equivalent to "literally every single person who wants to read this article".
Maybe stop assuming absolutism where most people would never intend it? Interpret posts with the most charitable interpretation possible given what's written? (Y'know, like the HN guidelines require of us in order to keep conversations civil?)
Maybe stop assuming absolutism where most people would never intend it? Interpret posts with the most charitable interpretation possible given what's written? (Y'know, like the HN guidelines require of us in order to keep conversations civil?)
> This feels a lot like the lectures these people are tired of.
How do you figure? The person you're replying to is pointing out that the majority of people profiled for the article seem to be doing just fine: they are saving at a decent (some at a more-than-decent) rate, and are living fairly comfortably. Lecturing them about something they're already doing seems pointless.
Only two of the people profiled in the article seem to actually be struggling, and might get lectures they're tired of. If the others are getting these lectures, then whoever is doing the lecturing clearly doesn't know how well they're actually doing!
You are replying to something that the grandparent did not actually write.
> when you describe $40,000 as a "low income", are you aware that the median income for a 20-24 year old is less than that?
Are you aware that something can be low even when there are other things that are even lower? Also I don't see where the parent mentioned "$40,000" at all, so maybe you clicked the reply button on the wrong post?
How do you figure? The person you're replying to is pointing out that the majority of people profiled for the article seem to be doing just fine: they are saving at a decent (some at a more-than-decent) rate, and are living fairly comfortably. Lecturing them about something they're already doing seems pointless.
Only two of the people profiled in the article seem to actually be struggling, and might get lectures they're tired of. If the others are getting these lectures, then whoever is doing the lecturing clearly doesn't know how well they're actually doing!
You are replying to something that the grandparent did not actually write.
> when you describe $40,000 as a "low income", are you aware that the median income for a 20-24 year old is less than that?
Are you aware that something can be low even when there are other things that are even lower? Also I don't see where the parent mentioned "$40,000" at all, so maybe you clicked the reply button on the wrong post?
I can confirm that this does suck.
I think you laid out nicely why I stopped paying attention to both NYT and WaPo. They might be the best newspapers in the country and the "paper of record" but there's way too much of this shaping the story to a desired narrative rather than the facts that happens. It's sad, because there are so many stories out there in the world that need to be told. Each of the examples you gave has way more interesting subject matter - how many young people are supporting family? How did a young person attain financial stability so quickly? How does a young man making well below average manage to save so much? And on and on. But it likely caters to their demographics and/or people buying newspapers (or - whoever paid to submarine this story) to spin that young people today are lazy and not saving. Yawn.
[deleted]
Not sure about average in NYC, we have a lot of millionaires that will drag that up, but he’s well above median household income, which is something like $70k.
I mean, sure. But my point remains: 90k is not even remotely a lot of money in NYC, even if it's above the median.
Anyone who manages to save 24k a year on a 90k salary in NYC -- where the median studio apartment will set you back more than 2k a month and coffee and lunch out can easily exceed $20 -- is doing a good job.
Anyone who manages to save 24k a year on a 90k salary in NYC -- where the median studio apartment will set you back more than 2k a month and coffee and lunch out can easily exceed $20 -- is doing a good job.
> The second example is a lady with 76k in debt, who has managed to pay down nearly 70% of it. Somehow this doesn't qualify as savings to the author.
Not only that, but she manages to maintain an emergency fund of $10k. I... think she's doing just fine?
Not only that, but she manages to maintain an emergency fund of $10k. I... think she's doing just fine?
> For the very last example, we have a 28-year-old man, earning well below average in NYC (90k a year), who nonetheless saves $2,000 a month. I'm sensing a bias here.
$90k a year is definitely not "well below average in NYC" - median household income is only $70k a year! (1)
1 - https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newyorkcitynewy...
$90k a year is definitely not "well below average in NYC" - median household income is only $70k a year! (1)
1 - https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newyorkcitynewy...
My radical opinion is that social workers should be able to make rent and be able to save for retirement.
Well, you're more than welcome to employ some!
> The second example is a lady with 76k in debt, who has managed to pay down nearly 70% of it. Somehow this doesn't qualify as savings to the author.
> The third woman actually makes a lot (they won't say how much) and has "achieved financial stability" (thus undermining the thesis of the article), but sends "the majority" of her paychecks to her family.
I’m simultaneously thrilled that I could pay 13k in medical bills in a recent family medical crisis, and very well aware that every time I’m able to do that kind of thing I have exactly the same savings of basically fuckall as I’ve always had. I’m similarly thrilled that I was able to pay off all of my outstanding debt after a few months not really recovering from burnout, again with approximately dick in savings. Neither of these achievements I feel bad about, but neither of them give me any kind of security in the sense people mean by “savings”.
Granted I’m 40, so I’m just resigned to probably making do until I don’t. So at least I don’t have 20 more years of that understanding to make do with people telling me I’m better off than I am.
> The third woman actually makes a lot (they won't say how much) and has "achieved financial stability" (thus undermining the thesis of the article), but sends "the majority" of her paychecks to her family.
I’m simultaneously thrilled that I could pay 13k in medical bills in a recent family medical crisis, and very well aware that every time I’m able to do that kind of thing I have exactly the same savings of basically fuckall as I’ve always had. I’m similarly thrilled that I was able to pay off all of my outstanding debt after a few months not really recovering from burnout, again with approximately dick in savings. Neither of these achievements I feel bad about, but neither of them give me any kind of security in the sense people mean by “savings”.
Granted I’m 40, so I’m just resigned to probably making do until I don’t. So at least I don’t have 20 more years of that understanding to make do with people telling me I’m better off than I am.
The whole premise of the article is beyond ridiculous - you are not supposed to be saving in your 20s (which first half is spent on studies for many) but enjoying the life, whatever that means for you! Once responsibilities like parenting and career ladders come into play its too late, there is no going back to that sweet careless freedom.
If I had a dollar for every person telling me 'I should have traveled the world more when I was young', that would be quite a sum. Backpacking can be done extremely cheaply in places like India or Nepal, in 2010 I spent roughly 500$/month all costs included there. Was it fancy snobbish type of trip? Heck no, riding on top of buses or cramped inside in fetal position for 12 hours straight next to chickens, eating in local dhabas, and still those were the best moments of my life, 3 months felt like 2-3 decades there. As a bonus such an experience will make you a better person overall, certainly it worked for me.
You simply can't get this kind of exposure to the real world in any other way, expensive organized trips certainly don't do same magic.
If I had a dollar for every person telling me 'I should have traveled the world more when I was young', that would be quite a sum. Backpacking can be done extremely cheaply in places like India or Nepal, in 2010 I spent roughly 500$/month all costs included there. Was it fancy snobbish type of trip? Heck no, riding on top of buses or cramped inside in fetal position for 12 hours straight next to chickens, eating in local dhabas, and still those were the best moments of my life, 3 months felt like 2-3 decades there. As a bonus such an experience will make you a better person overall, certainly it worked for me.
You simply can't get this kind of exposure to the real world in any other way, expensive organized trips certainly don't do same magic.
Alternate view: Early life is the best time to save because of compounding interest. A dollar saved in your 20s has far more lifetime value than a dollar saved in your 30s, 40s or 50s. A year spent horsing around in Nepal "finding yourself" could easily mean having to delay retirement 5 years. I'd rather goof off and enjoy 20 carefree years when I'm old than 4 years when I'm young and have to work until I die.
The title has two parts, both of which you've provided ample commentary on, but only one explicitly. In Their 20s, Struggling to Save... and Tired of Being Lectured About It. "Ridiculous" and "and so can you" come down on one side of the question of, how should we morally judge people about their savings?
Also: Why would you already want to start saving in your twenties? If you have to pay debts etc, of course, there's nothing left for saving, but it'll work out in the future when the debts are paid.
The article may suck but every dataset I've seen supports the notion that average-net-worth-at-same-age took a sharp dive with Gen X, was even worse for Millennials, and is yet worse than that for Gen Z. IOW each generation has saved less than the Boomers when they were the same age, and the effect's gotten worse with each new generation.
Perhaps unsurprisingly—and, maybe even explaining most of the effect—home ownership rates at-same-age, by generation, look pretty similar. More 25-year-old Boomers owned their home, than Gen Xers, than Millennials, than Zers, and there's no later-in-life sharp uptick for those generations that makes up the gap. Worse with each generation.
Perhaps unsurprisingly—and, maybe even explaining most of the effect—home ownership rates at-same-age, by generation, look pretty similar. More 25-year-old Boomers owned their home, than Gen Xers, than Millennials, than Zers, and there's no later-in-life sharp uptick for those generations that makes up the gap. Worse with each generation.
And every attempt to fix this buy making housing affordable for younger people is met by extremely angry accusations of entitlement by the generation with the easiest access to wealth and good salaries in history, and spent their entire time on this earth making things shittier for next generations by making homes a for profit endeavor instead of a thing most people need, ignoring global warming and green energy for the enrichment of very few, removing and kneecapping what few social safety nets this country had, and treating people self medicating with drugs as criminals instead of people desperately trying to avoid burnout.
So yeah, any advice or claim from these people rings stupidly hollow, especially since they regularly seem to have no fucking clue what these young people are experiencing, because in their time, the minimum wage was enough to buy a medium size house, a small car, and have a family.
So yeah, any advice or claim from these people rings stupidly hollow, especially since they regularly seem to have no fucking clue what these young people are experiencing, because in their time, the minimum wage was enough to buy a medium size house, a small car, and have a family.
I actually agree with you. The problem is that you're doing a better job of making the case than the NY Times writer, who resorted to citing anecdotes that mostly contradicted the lede and tried to hide that fact.
> But saving is especially difficult right now because on top of student debt, housing and food costs remain high even as inflation has started to cool.
Statements like this are weird to me, because "cooling inflation" doesn't mean "prices are dropping", and suggests that the author doesn't really understand basic economic concepts. When inflation raises the price of something, that's it: that's the new price. Absent other innovations to make it cheaper (more efficient production or logistics, etc.), the price will not go back down. The hope, of course, is that once inflation is under control, wages will rise to counteract its effects.
> Theresa Fairless [...] said paying off student loans was her priority. Ms. Fairless graduated from college in 2018 with about $25,900 in government loans and $50,000 in personal loans.
Now I don't know the details of her loans, but this was a mistake I made in my 20s: if your interest rate is low, your priority should be saving and investing, not paying off the loans. Obviously you still need to make the minimum payments.
Granted, investing has not been great over the past year, so it probably has been a good idea to pay down debt more aggressively than in prior years.
I had a government college loan at 3.5% that I absolutely should not have paid off early. I had a private loan as well that was variable, and I think when I paid it off it was a little over 4%. Still questionable; maybe should have put the extra cash toward investments rather than the loan. But at the time I didn't really know what I was doing, and was also worried about the variable rate rising too much.
(Her loan amounts are also in line with what I had... well, I guess technically lower than mine, considering inflation over the past 20 years.)
A couple paragraphs down it talks about how she is saving and investing, has a $10k emergency fund, and is still able to give her mom some money to help her out. So... it seems like she's doing just fine? Seems better off than a ton of people, anyway.
Statements like this are weird to me, because "cooling inflation" doesn't mean "prices are dropping", and suggests that the author doesn't really understand basic economic concepts. When inflation raises the price of something, that's it: that's the new price. Absent other innovations to make it cheaper (more efficient production or logistics, etc.), the price will not go back down. The hope, of course, is that once inflation is under control, wages will rise to counteract its effects.
> Theresa Fairless [...] said paying off student loans was her priority. Ms. Fairless graduated from college in 2018 with about $25,900 in government loans and $50,000 in personal loans.
Now I don't know the details of her loans, but this was a mistake I made in my 20s: if your interest rate is low, your priority should be saving and investing, not paying off the loans. Obviously you still need to make the minimum payments.
Granted, investing has not been great over the past year, so it probably has been a good idea to pay down debt more aggressively than in prior years.
I had a government college loan at 3.5% that I absolutely should not have paid off early. I had a private loan as well that was variable, and I think when I paid it off it was a little over 4%. Still questionable; maybe should have put the extra cash toward investments rather than the loan. But at the time I didn't really know what I was doing, and was also worried about the variable rate rising too much.
(Her loan amounts are also in line with what I had... well, I guess technically lower than mine, considering inflation over the past 20 years.)
A couple paragraphs down it talks about how she is saving and investing, has a $10k emergency fund, and is still able to give her mom some money to help her out. So... it seems like she's doing just fine? Seems better off than a ton of people, anyway.
I had a government college loan at 3.5% that I absolutely should not have paid off early.
Why? You knew of a better opportunity to make a risk-free 3.5% (less any tax deduction)?
Why? You knew of a better opportunity to make a risk-free 3.5% (less any tax deduction)?
Yes it is called inflation. That 3.5% loan principle and payment has become 2% less valuable most years, and recently it has become 9% less valuable. So if that money was put into buying assets that the OP needed, that would be risk free gain.
Also the tax deduction you point out is nullified by paying off the loan. The deduction is on student loan interest. So now that is lost every year. If someone qualifies for that deduction and inflation is normal/high it is pretty hard for 3.5% to be worth paying off early.
Also the tax deduction you point out is nullified by paying off the loan. The deduction is on student loan interest. So now that is lost every year. If someone qualifies for that deduction and inflation is normal/high it is pretty hard for 3.5% to be worth paying off early.
Right. If only it were as easy to predict when the government was going to start printing money and trigger inflation before they actually did it.
Yes. Nullified. You don't get the deduction if you pay off the loan. That probably doesn't amount to much in the income bracket under consideration.
Yes. Nullified. You don't get the deduction if you pay off the loan. That probably doesn't amount to much in the income bracket under consideration.
Any decent index fund?
“Risk free” is too high a bar for any investment, compare the expected outcome instead.
“Risk free” is too high a bar for any investment, compare the expected outcome instead.
Paying off the loan is risk-free. Expected value of an index fund is not obviously better. But you knew that.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average...
Sure, if you have exactly zero risk tolerance, pay off a low interest rate loan. But based on history, you will almost certainly lose over the long term of a decade or more.
Sure, if you have exactly zero risk tolerance, pay off a low interest rate loan. But based on history, you will almost certainly lose over the long term of a decade or more.
I don't really disagree, but it's not as obvious as it seems in hindsight. 3.5% (which OP says became 4%) isn't a low interest rate when inflation and other low risk options (e.g., CDs) are <1%.
Also, your article says:
"Adjusted for inflation, the historical average annual return is only around 8.5%.
There is an additional problem posed by the question of whether that inflation-adjusted average is accurate since the adjustment is made using the inflation figures from the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the index which some analysts believe vastly understates the true inflation rate."
So maybe the stock index average to use is more like 2x the loan interest.
Also, your article says:
"Adjusted for inflation, the historical average annual return is only around 8.5%.
There is an additional problem posed by the question of whether that inflation-adjusted average is accurate since the adjustment is made using the inflation figures from the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the index which some analysts believe vastly understates the true inflation rate."
So maybe the stock index average to use is more like 2x the loan interest.
If you have subsequent expenses that require credit card debt, or a car loan, it's better to have cash savings available to reduce that. You can't unpay a 3.5% loan to get back money to pay off a 20% loan.
> The hope, of course, is that once inflation is under control, wages will rise to counteract its effects.
I see where you're going with your statement but I believe the wage-price spiral being a major cause of _this_ inflation is not a fact. :)
I see where you're going with your statement but I believe the wage-price spiral being a major cause of _this_ inflation is not a fact. :)
On the "cooling inflation" part, there's a different interpretation of what she's saying that I think is actually true and meaningful. Even though the rate of broad increase of the price of services and goods has declined recently (inflation has started to cool), the ratio between housing + food costs and income is still elevated (housing and food costs remain high).
The alternative is possible, that housing and food costs would remain steady or even decline while other prices increased, bringing the ratios back to more historic levels. But, this doesn't seem to be happening.
The alternative is possible, that housing and food costs would remain steady or even decline while other prices increased, bringing the ratios back to more historic levels. But, this doesn't seem to be happening.
because "cooling inflation"
It's an intentionally vague description that lets the NYTs writer off the hook for not having to be more specific about something which is more complicated and doesn't understand that well.
It's an intentionally vague description that lets the NYTs writer off the hook for not having to be more specific about something which is more complicated and doesn't understand that well.
> Ms. German-Tanner said 20-somethings were often encouraged to take financial steps like build emergency funds, save for retirement and pay off debt. They’re advised to invest when the market is down and to start thinking about their futures as early as possible.
"Build an emergency fund" is basically impossible for a lot of people. I remember hearing that advice. The problem was that food, housing, my car, and related necessary expenses ate up most of my paycheck. Getting rid of cable would have saved a tiny bit of money, made life miserable for me inside my small apartment, and contributed approximately nothing to an emergency fund equal to even one month of income. I knew it would be nice to have more money in savings before anyone told me.
> I feel like the older generation is constantly pushing you to do stuff like they did when they were in their 20s, but it’s not even comparable to when they were in their 20s
Anyone that says this does not understand what it was like for the older generation. Most of the time if someone is pushing financial advice, they're either trying to sell you something, or they're trying to help you avoid the problems they faced. It was never easy.
"Build an emergency fund" is basically impossible for a lot of people. I remember hearing that advice. The problem was that food, housing, my car, and related necessary expenses ate up most of my paycheck. Getting rid of cable would have saved a tiny bit of money, made life miserable for me inside my small apartment, and contributed approximately nothing to an emergency fund equal to even one month of income. I knew it would be nice to have more money in savings before anyone told me.
> I feel like the older generation is constantly pushing you to do stuff like they did when they were in their 20s, but it’s not even comparable to when they were in their 20s
Anyone that says this does not understand what it was like for the older generation. Most of the time if someone is pushing financial advice, they're either trying to sell you something, or they're trying to help you avoid the problems they faced. It was never easy.
> It was never easy.
I'd even say that it was harder since nowadays there are various social programs, not to mention "helicopter money". Until around after WW2 if you didn't work, you got nothing.
I'd even say that it was harder since nowadays there are various social programs, not to mention "helicopter money". Until around after WW2 if you didn't work, you got nothing.
The woman who is not thinking about retirement savings but is doing Barry’s, yoga, and ClassPass feels like she has the opportunity to make better financial choices, unlike some of the others that are just clearly in poverty. Those class-based gyms are stupendously expensive, $30 or more per workout. Compares unfavorably with a regular gym membership or buying running shoes or a bike, depending on what you’re into. Lots of outdoors opportunities in Colorado too.
I work at FAANG and just generally see so much lifestyle inflation from coworkers, even at high incomes. Taking Ubers everywhere instead of the subway or bikes, $20 cocktails, fancy restaurants that aren’t really that much better, those high price fitness classes… I interact with a lot of people at high levels who have been there for a while, and often wonder why they aren’t retired yet.
I work at FAANG and just generally see so much lifestyle inflation from coworkers, even at high incomes. Taking Ubers everywhere instead of the subway or bikes, $20 cocktails, fancy restaurants that aren’t really that much better, those high price fitness classes… I interact with a lot of people at high levels who have been there for a while, and often wonder why they aren’t retired yet.
I work at FAANG and just generally see so much lifestyle inflation from coworkers, even at high incomes. Taking Ubers everywhere instead of the subway or bikes, $20 cocktails, fancy restaurants that aren’t really that much better, those high price fitness classes… I interact with a lot of people at high levels who have been there for a while, and often wonder why they aren’t retired yet.
The salaries are so much, especially with stock, perks, bonusses, raises, etc. that they still probably are doing well. The biggest cost is having kids, cause then you have wife, healthcare, college, etc. (assuming single income household).
The salaries are so much, especially with stock, perks, bonusses, raises, etc. that they still probably are doing well. The biggest cost is having kids, cause then you have wife, healthcare, college, etc. (assuming single income household).
Tbh most of the people at work whose relationships I know about are with someone who also works at FAANG or a FAANG-alike. Lots of 2 SWE couples.
Yep. Although, statistically - this isn’t true. They’re not the majority since women make up only 20% of the Eng workforce. Leaving 3x as many men leftover.
most likely, there are a lot of men who aren't in relationships but want one.
This is such a stupid take. Guess what, those little expenses DON'T add up. It turns out pretty much no small transactions you avoid to save five bucks here and there can't actually compete with costs of rent going up 80% over the course of five years.
I live so frugally I have an entire years worth of cash in my bank, despite only making $65k (underpaid even for an area that has low SWE pay and a company that openly targets low SWE pay) and spending over $1600 a month in rent and utilities. But I still can't afford a house anywhere within 100 miles. I can't have a hobby that requires any extra space. Rent has gone up by $15000 a year, everywhere.
Why the hell should we get advice from the generation that lived through the easist access to well paying jobs and investments pretty much in history? They literally have no idea what this is like. They lived through a time where you could walk into a place just out of highschool and get a job that you could almost afford a brand new house with. They lived through a time where employers would train you, pay for you to learn new things, and expect to move you up through the ranks so you could be more useful and make more money. They lived through a time where fretting over a hundred dollars difference in a living expense was a common thing. They lived through all this and STILL didn't plan for retirement or save money for emergencies.
So yeah, they have no good advice to offer us, because they genuinely don't even understand how hard it is to spend literally half your income on a roof over your head.
I live so frugally I have an entire years worth of cash in my bank, despite only making $65k (underpaid even for an area that has low SWE pay and a company that openly targets low SWE pay) and spending over $1600 a month in rent and utilities. But I still can't afford a house anywhere within 100 miles. I can't have a hobby that requires any extra space. Rent has gone up by $15000 a year, everywhere.
Why the hell should we get advice from the generation that lived through the easist access to well paying jobs and investments pretty much in history? They literally have no idea what this is like. They lived through a time where you could walk into a place just out of highschool and get a job that you could almost afford a brand new house with. They lived through a time where employers would train you, pay for you to learn new things, and expect to move you up through the ranks so you could be more useful and make more money. They lived through a time where fretting over a hundred dollars difference in a living expense was a common thing. They lived through all this and STILL didn't plan for retirement or save money for emergencies.
So yeah, they have no good advice to offer us, because they genuinely don't even understand how hard it is to spend literally half your income on a roof over your head.
They do add up. No, you're not going to be able to afford a house simply by dropping the $8 lattes, but your chances improve greatly if you avoid the overall lifestyle inflation and always-be-spending mentality. A major symptom of lifestyle inflation is paying people to do things you can DIY. I work with perpetually broke people who pay a nanny/housekeeper, pay people to fix their car, pay plumbers, and so on. The unnecessary cost of always defaulting to "pay someone" really does add up. Plus all the eating out, streaming subscriptions, gym memberships, and so on add up to a significant chunk of savings.
[deleted]
At least two of the women (the 2nd and 3rd profiled in the story) are pretty much killing it. One has an emergency fund over $10K, is regularly saving additional money, all on a $65K income at age 25. That's got to put her in the top 10% of 25-year olds. The third is absolutely crushing it by any reasonable guessing at her financial flows.
> That's got to put her in the top 10% of 25-year olds.
I think that supports the article. That someone with two-months of income saved up would be in the top 10% of her age group isn't a great sign about the state of her age group.
I think that supports the article. That someone with two-months of income saved up would be in the top 10% of her age group isn't a great sign about the state of her age group.
Looking back, our retirement saving really started in the mid-late 30’s. No kids, two incomes and finally above entry level salaries. Continued through our 50’s. Only out of school mid 20’s and married a few years after than. No chance to really accumulate then.
Yeah, it's interesting that this is getting treatment that sounds like it's a new phenomenon.
I was born in 1981, my family was comfortably middle class. I left college in the early 00s with a decent chunk of debt, and couldn't really start saving until I was nearly 30.
Yes, I get that many college graduates today are saddled with more debt than I had, and inflation and rising housing costs aren't helping, but is it really that different? It seems like the severity is worse, but the tune is the same.
I was born in 1981, my family was comfortably middle class. I left college in the early 00s with a decent chunk of debt, and couldn't really start saving until I was nearly 30.
Yes, I get that many college graduates today are saddled with more debt than I had, and inflation and rising housing costs aren't helping, but is it really that different? It seems like the severity is worse, but the tune is the same.
Same here, by mid 30s savings started becoming meaningful.
I always interpreted the "always save some" mantra (which was a mantra as long as I can remember) as a way to form habits, not to really accumulate any large amounts of retirement funds.
I always interpreted the "always save some" mantra (which was a mantra as long as I can remember) as a way to form habits, not to really accumulate any large amounts of retirement funds.
Saving is good. Getting the 401k match is good. Have no experience with the cash flow requirement of kids or of hitting the startup lottery. But find the balance between today and tomorrow because too much of either isn’t a win. And things might not be quite what you’d like tomorrow.
Yes, enough of the "stop spending so much on {coffee, toast, Netflix} " advice. Or the lectures about saving. Even though I don't usually agree with the NYTs politically, I have to admit this is not helpful. The issue is costs keep rising faster than inflation, wages. Insurance, healthcare, childcare, tuition, etc.
I am currently in my mid/late 20s and living in Latvia (Eastern Europe). After getting my Bachelor's and Master's degrees from a local university, working for about 5 years with gradually increasing salaries/hours (started while studying), saving and/or investing on average around 50% of what I make, I have about 50'000 Euros saved up.
It's better than some of my peers, worse than people in the more wealthy countries, but still feels both like a necessity and something that's also not enough at the same time. In the last year, I've seen my investments (bank managed funds) go from being +10'000 Euros over the value at which I got in, to being in the red, to slowly recovering now. The inflation isn't all that good, either.
I'm taking a short break from working altogether to upskill myself and work on some personal projects, so it's nice to have savings for cases like these (as well as things like unforseen medical expenses, though most are manageable here), but something tells me that I'll need to keep living a somewhat spartan lifestyle, getting some limited peace of mind in exchange for that, saving similarly wherever I work next.
To be honest, I feel bad for people in high cost of living areas, especially those who have cars and families to take care of, as well as debt - the economy should probably be in a better spot, and certain groups of services should be more affordable than they are now.
It's better than some of my peers, worse than people in the more wealthy countries, but still feels both like a necessity and something that's also not enough at the same time. In the last year, I've seen my investments (bank managed funds) go from being +10'000 Euros over the value at which I got in, to being in the red, to slowly recovering now. The inflation isn't all that good, either.
I'm taking a short break from working altogether to upskill myself and work on some personal projects, so it's nice to have savings for cases like these (as well as things like unforseen medical expenses, though most are manageable here), but something tells me that I'll need to keep living a somewhat spartan lifestyle, getting some limited peace of mind in exchange for that, saving similarly wherever I work next.
To be honest, I feel bad for people in high cost of living areas, especially those who have cars and families to take care of, as well as debt - the economy should probably be in a better spot, and certain groups of services should be more affordable than they are now.
I am overjoyed to hear that you are able to take sabbatical to upskill. That is a dream of mine… unfortunately I’m burned out from the slog of living paycheck to paycheck.
28 y/o. Worked three jobs prior to COVID. All three jobs evaporated in the same week. Moved from Midwest to California seeking opportunity. Now I’m serving a low-tier IT role making 55K in SoCal and it’s… really depressing honestly. I feel like I’m stuck here.
28 y/o. Worked three jobs prior to COVID. All three jobs evaporated in the same week. Moved from Midwest to California seeking opportunity. Now I’m serving a low-tier IT role making 55K in SoCal and it’s… really depressing honestly. I feel like I’m stuck here.
The following might sound a ridiculous suggestion but is the kind of thing I did in my 20s at times. Could you drastically cut your cost of living for a temporary period, in order to, while working, pay off bills / get some savings, and/or, when not working, do a sabbatical and up-skill? I mean by doing something radical like, live in a tent for the summer, house-sit, work a few hours at a backpackers hostel in return for somewhere to sleep, live in an old bus or trailer somewhere - some rather basic accommodation that only a young-ish person can really cope with that is super cheap. Maybe somewhere connected to a farm where there's some free or cheap food. Maybe live on rice, beans, tortillas, pasta and basic fruit and veg for a bit? Or if that all sounds too wild or unrealistic, how are your qualifications? Could you study part-time for a decent university qualification if you haven't already got one, via a state uni possibly distance or possibly local? Or merely a shorter bootcamp and make sure you shine at it? Might be a slog but it'd pay off in time. I don't think you are stuck actually because you are gainfully employed in the tech sector , you've got the crucial foot in the door, its a matter really of getting capability of programming and then demonstrating that to the right people. Being poorly paid but in the right industry I think has a definite light at the end of the tunnel. Good luck :)
Yeah we can save, but can we ever afford a house? 1 bedroom condos go for a million dollars in some cities.
>So just don't live there
There's only so far away from the jobs you can go.
>So just don't live there
There's only so far away from the jobs you can go.
There's people paying their rent with a McDonald's job.
My point is there are jobs in low cost of living areas, and even when they look like a low paying job it might be more then enough to live in that area.
My point is there are jobs in low cost of living areas, and even when they look like a low paying job it might be more then enough to live in that area.
Surprisingly (tellingly?) absent is the utter lack of support that many people this age get from their parents. And why are the parents unable to give support, or even need support themselves? Because so many of them also failed to save any money, even when doing so would have been easier. This is not a new thing, and at least today's 20-somethings have an excuse. They're not completely wrong when they say that we (I'm 57) left them in a worse position than we inherited ourselves. FWIW, I and my family are doing fine, but I sure do understand why in general they don't think our advice is worth a damn.
A super shitty one: in Berkeley there's a mandatory savings contribution, with no income floor. So what you get is people who are on minimum wage who can barely cover bills because of laughably low minimum wages, who are effectively having those negligible wages garnished - the "savings" aren't meaningful for retirement in any way shape or form, so all that is happening is they're having money taken from them so that they can't buy, for example, food.
> “I feel like the older generation is constantly pushing you to do stuff like they did when they were in their 20s, but it’s not even comparable to when they were in their 20s,”
To be clear, much of the older generation didn't do this in their early 20. It's been a building concern for many decades.
And they've been lectured about it forever, same as 20-somethings are today. It's not clear what "older generation" here here, but Millennials and Gen-X got stuff like SNL's 2006: "Don’t Buy Stuff You Cannot Afford" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ZJKN_5M44
This isn't "Gen Z is poor; Boomers/Gen X/Millennials were rich". This is "I'm poor, and know some older people who aren't". There's no shortage of people in their twenties making well into six figures.
> Ms. German-Tanner said 20-somethings were often encouraged to take financial steps like build emergency funds, save for retirement and pay off debt.
Well...yeah. It's good advice. It might be hard, but it's been hard for a sizeable chunk of the population for many, many decades. That's why there's constant push for it—without this emphasis, people just borrow and spend. True in the 70s, true in the 90s, and true today.
To be clear, much of the older generation didn't do this in their early 20. It's been a building concern for many decades.
And they've been lectured about it forever, same as 20-somethings are today. It's not clear what "older generation" here here, but Millennials and Gen-X got stuff like SNL's 2006: "Don’t Buy Stuff You Cannot Afford" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ZJKN_5M44
This isn't "Gen Z is poor; Boomers/Gen X/Millennials were rich". This is "I'm poor, and know some older people who aren't". There's no shortage of people in their twenties making well into six figures.
> Ms. German-Tanner said 20-somethings were often encouraged to take financial steps like build emergency funds, save for retirement and pay off debt.
Well...yeah. It's good advice. It might be hard, but it's been hard for a sizeable chunk of the population for many, many decades. That's why there's constant push for it—without this emphasis, people just borrow and spend. True in the 70s, true in the 90s, and true today.
[deleted]
archive: https://nyti.ms/3wiDcBc
This forwards me to the article link, and opens the paywall modal.
[deleted]
Almost all the examples are women?
The last example is a man.
It's a particularly responsible man, too. You'd think if they had some kind of insidious demographic agenda they would choose a different contrast. I think the only subtextual story here is the last line:
>"He said that he owed his father for providing him with much of his personal finance knowledge and that friends from families who didn’t talk about money did not have as much financial literacy."
>"He said that he owed his father for providing him with much of his personal finance knowledge and that friends from families who didn’t talk about money did not have as much financial literacy."
Really makes you think
The answer to your question is in the article.
Could you clarify the point of your statement?
Didn’t think it needed saying but only representing the perspectives of half the population doesn’t sound like a great way to make your point especially since these problems are not restricted to women.
The PMC class that this article is aimed at is represented correctly in this article. It's heavily female.
Had it been 5 men and 1 woman you wouldn't even have thought about it.
I don't know why you're downvoted. If they picked randomly there's around 21% chance of getting a distribution like this (4+ women) randomly. And 21% chance of getting 4+ men. This means that there's just about 58% chance that random distribution is "fair" with respect to race.
But why focus on the gender. What about skin colour? Or maybe political preference? Do they have to be weighted to the average population too? This is of course silly - that's an newspaper article, not a scientific paper.
Edit: my math was off, 12% instead of 21% (brain fog, it's 3am here). My point still stands.
But why focus on the gender. What about skin colour? Or maybe political preference? Do they have to be weighted to the average population too? This is of course silly - that's an newspaper article, not a scientific paper.
Edit: my math was off, 12% instead of 21% (brain fog, it's 3am here). My point still stands.
I'm surprised the article doesn't mention social security. A young person making $2,000 a month is paying $240 a month towards social security (half directly and half through their employer), and will likely never see any of it once they reach retirement age.
oh I bet they’ll get the check exactly as they are owed it will just be worth a fraction of what it would be worth today in terms of what you can buy with it
Social security payments are inflation-adjusted actually. It's more an issue of solvency. The trust fund backing payments is projected to run dry in the mid-2030's [1]. Solving this either means raising taxes on working-age adults or lowering payouts; the UK is a good example of the former, where working-age incomes have recently fallen below pensioner incomes [2], and no politician wants to be the one to bite the bullet on the latter.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38957903
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38957903
“inflation” adjusted but by what metric? CPI? lol
The second example is a lady with 76k in debt, who has managed to pay down nearly 70% of it. Somehow this doesn't qualify as savings to the author.
The third woman actually makes a lot (they won't say how much) and has "achieved financial stability" (thus undermining the thesis of the article), but sends "the majority" of her paychecks to her family.
Finally, by the fourth example: someone with three jobs, who still manages to save $200 a month! I do feel for her, though. (Note to author: why in the world would you bury this example??)
The fifth example spends on expensive exercise classes and "also likes to go out to dinner with her friends"...but still saves $600 a month.
For the very last example, we have a 28-year-old man, earning well below average in NYC (90k a year), who nonetheless saves $2,000 a month. I'm sensing a bias here.
This is a ridiculous article. It should be titled: "These 20-somethings mostly manage to save despite difficult life choices and low incomes, and so can you."