
The Fleecing of Millennials - SolaceQuantum
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/27/opinion/buttigieg-2020-millennials.html
======
11thEarlOfMar
The fleecing affects millennials in that they cannot save and invest their
income. Once they've paid their health care and education [1] payments, they
have nothing left to save.

Per capita, in 2017 dollars, 1970 Americans spent $1,797 on health care. In
2017, $10,739 [0]. In return on that $9,000 annual investment: Life expectancy
rose from 74.7 to 78.6, adding 3.9 years.

In 1993, the annual cost for tuition & fees to attending a UC as an in-state
was $5,000. Today, it's $15,000 [2]. That's a 3x increase during a period when
inflation was 1.7x. A Gen Y-er would have paid $20,000 in tuition for a 4-year
degree. A millenial, $60,000. That $40,000 is money that could otherwise have
been saved.

Since those costs were lower as a percentage of income for boomers, Gen X and
Gen Y, those prior generations had a better chance to save. Today, they also
have highest incomes, and again, can save if that's how they prioritize their
finances.

Millennials, not so much. For sure, health care and education affects earlier
generations, but they were better able to save in 401(k) plans because the
portion of their income that went to health and education was substantially
less than for millennials.

[0] [https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-
spe...](https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-
healthcare-changed-time/#item-total-health-expenditures-have-increased-
substantially-over-the-past-several-decades_2017)

[1] [https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/growth-in-
student-l...](https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/growth-in-student-loan-
debt-at-graduation-slows-as-borrowers-hit-loan-limits)

[2] [https://www.kqed.org/news/70585/csu-and-uc-tuition-hikes-
ove...](https://www.kqed.org/news/70585/csu-and-uc-tuition-hikes-over-time)

~~~
bengillies
I think it's worth pointing out here that the terms Gen Y and Millenial both
refer to the same generation (see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials))

~~~
echelon
You're correct. None of the parent's argument makes any sense in light of this
error. I don't understand why the post is being upvoted--the data is outright
wrong!

I sense that people may blindly upvote posts reporting figures, especially if
they come with sources.

~~~
hoaw
Generation X and Millennial isn't really a sharp transition. No generation is,
but it is even more diffuse this time since there wasn't necessarily one or
multiple "big events" at a fixed date. I don't know if parent's argument is
correct, but what is being said is essentially early Millennial, ~1985 and
late Millennial, ~1995. Huge difference in many e.g. housing markets. Once
people born around the actual millennial gets old enough we might start
talking about Generation Z instead.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Most people born in 1985 had their income affected too much by the Great
Recession to really take advantage of the lower housing prices then.

~~~
hoaw
Could be the case for many people. I think the commonality between generations
might even be declining in favor of other divides. It is in some ways assumed
that many people are starting at the bottom and mostly share paths based on
development. But I am not sure that is the case anymore, if it ever really
were.

------
bryanlarsen
Boomer's may have accumulated a large amount of wealth, but that wealth is
going to be hit hard by Baumol's cost disease.

Right now the US has ~4 workers per retiree. That's going to be dropping to
about 2 in the next few decades. And despite frantic efforts from the
Japanese, the services that the elderly need are hard to automate. These
services generally suffer from Baumol's cost disease: nursing et al are very
1:1 jobs with or without the help of technology.

~~~
alexgmcm
It's weird though - my girlfriend studies nursing and Geriatric Nursing is
still one of the lowest paid specialisations with poor conditions and respect
(compared to say working in the ICU).

It seems residential homes charge the 'guests' loads and pay the staff
(carers, nurses, cleaners etc.) very, very little.

~~~
RhodesianHunter
Hopefully not offending anyone, but it is one of the most manual labor
intensive and has some of the lowest educational requirements and cognitive
overhead of the various nursing specialties. It also carries lower requisite
insurance costs.

~~~
hoaw
Also one of the best examples of what you lose in this changing society
though. The decline of the middle class in general is of course problematic,
but at least some of these jobs weren't worth saving as activities (though
probably as careers). However that you can't have sustainable career as a
common nurse, teacher or construction worker is a huge problem. Because these
professions can't necessarily be paid a lot and also serve the public.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Geriatric may be one of the worst paid of the nursing professions, but nursing
itself has seen its salaries increase dramatically. Partially due to demand,
partially due to increasing responsibilities, and partially due to the equal
pay for equal work movement. I know nurses who make well into 6 figures.
That's because they work way more than 40 hours / week, with much of that
night shift, but even without it's not the horrible pay it used to to. Nursing
is definitely a "sustainable career".

~~~
hoaw
I hope you are correct. Point still stands that professions like nursing to
some extent have an inverse relationship between utility and cost. Everyone
can't be a nurses with specialist education, a teachers at private school or a
construction worker building luxury apartment buildings. If people do not want
to pay more, and probably also lose more in transit, I think it is crucial
that you can live a good life at low costs in those professions. Otherwise no
one is going be left to care for the weak, tech the poor or build housing for
the middle class. At least not with good results.

------
rnernento
It's cute that they call it a fleecing, as if millenials could really have
done anything about this.

Sadly (I guess...) I suspect the generation responsible for all of this is
going to end up paying some unexpected prices when the time comes as they age
out of power and have to look to millenials for care.

~~~
jmull
That's a good point.

However, the narrative of "blame the boomers" is a con.

Blow this off if you want, but just realize that unless you're a russian bot
or an ally of the American oligarchs you're working against your own self
interests.

The con is blame the problems of one group on another group to separate them
and get them fighting each other. This distracts everyone from the real causes
of the problems. It's the same as blaming the brown people, which is pretty
popular right now too. (Not a coincidence: in both cases the groups have a
hard time understanding each other and it's very easy to identify the other
group.) Another big one is getting people to identify as Ds and Rs and letting
them blame and fight each other. (They are somewhat harder to identify, but
the red hats help.)

It's important for millennials to understand this because without addressing
the actual problem you are not going to end up with an actual working
solution.

You'll go after boomers and still see no improvements. No doubt the people
benefitting from the con will say you simply need to go after them harder.
Guess what? That other group of people aren't actually demons and anyone
demonizing them is bs'ing you, whether wittingly or not.

That's not to say boomers haven't benefited from the current system -- they
have ( _generally_ ). But their main advantage there is that they vote. (I
don't know the full solution to that, but one thing is we _have_ to make
voting easier.)

I think the main problem is the massive money in politics. The people with
money have always used it to influence politics in order to get more money.
But they seem to have basically won outright at this point, with firm control
of congress and the supreme court. The executive is mostly under control. The
guy at the top is a wild-card but can be managed and is incompetent in any
case.

Anyway, I wish I had a lot of answers but I don't. Just keep your eyes open
and don't fall for the con. That's probably not enough to ensure a good
outcome, but if you don't it's enough to ensure a bad outcome.

~~~
echelon
> I don't know the full solution to that, but one thing is we have to make
> voting easier.

I wholeheartedly agree. We need absolutely zero friction to onboard younger
generations.

What does this look like to you? Do we provide an app where people can input
their social security, driver's license, or other ID number? How do we keep it
from being abused if this information was stolen by a third party?

Ideally we could have something as simple as download -> vote -> submit. And
also provide a website version that doesn't even need to be downloaded.

How do we get something like this approved? What states would be the most
likely to go for this?

~~~
jmull
> What does this look like to you?

I don't know, really.

An app & web site are great for convenience, but large-scale hacking needs to
be very difficult to do and easy to detect and verify... vs. highly motivated
& well-funded state-level actors. That's not easy. On a related note, people
generally also have to have a level of trust and comfort with the system.

While those "details" are worked out, maybe some enhancements to the existing
mechanisms will help...

* pre-paid postage on mail-in ballots? I've heard that the post office will deliver mail-in ballots even without postage, but when the envelope clearly says "postage required" not a lot of people are going to attempt that route.

* Same day voter registration? There's some increased potential for fraud. But it's also the day where all the political officials & volunteers of all parties from big to small are mobilized and watching. It should be possible to have a system for this that is very difficult to perpetrate fraud against it at any scale.

* Make voting day a Saturday or Sunday? (A national holiday is tricky. A lot of people don't get paid when they don't work, it doesn't matter if it's a national holiday or not. And I expect a new national holiday will be largely used for purposes other than the intended one.)

* 6am to 9pm polling hours? This is tough. There are real people working the polls all day, from before they open until after they close, sometimes a long time after. IDK, maybe 6am to 8pm?

* Give people a sandwich or a pizza when they vote? I guess more generally, get food trucks to come out and work the polling places which accept vouchers from the polling place?

IDK. There are surely people who've worked on this for years so my off-the-
top-of-my-head ideas are surely hopelessly naive, aside from the ones I've
gotten from those people.

~~~
echelon
These are fantastic ideas (many I hadn't thought of), and I'll definitely
advocate for them! Thanks for sharing.

------
nopinsight
A major contributor to millennials' expenses is housing. NIMBYism will
continue to be a contraint to having sufficiently more living units in
existing major cities for the foreseeable future.

We should push for building new cities or upgrading existing small ones. We
can create them to fit with lifestyles of the young: walkable, bike- and
pedestrian-friendly, well-served by public transportation, etc.

Having good jobs nearby would be important. I believe developing new cities
close to major universities (in smaller towns) and possibly adjacent to
existing job centers would help garner critical mass to kickstart their
momentum relatively quickly.

~~~
jbob2000
It’s not just NIMBYism, but also down right selfishness. My parents are
retired and live in a house that backs on to an elementary school. What the
hell are retired childless couples doing living next to schools?

I’m in the process of looking for my first house and my mother said to me the
other day, “why don’t you try something out in the country”. I have 40 years
left to work, why don’t YOU move out to the country!

At some point, we’re going to have a bunch of vacant schools because all these
old farts won’t leave.

------
albertgoeswoof
Does anyone know / remember if there were similar pieces written in the late
90s about people in their 20s and 30s then? Ie is this a trend that has always
happened or something new?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
They were a lost generation for different reasons. A little earlier than late
90s:

The Thatcher/Reagan de-industrialisation through the 80s meant a huge number
of children deprived of opportunity as whole regions and cities lost their
major employers. In the UK it was effectively the start of our drug problem.
Criminalisation had only arrived in the late 60s. Then we got the big
recession of the early 90s.

Most of those de-industrialised areas had huge crime and drug problems, lost
opportunities and parents who were broke, jobless and without hope. London and
the South East was turbo-charging banking so we got Harry Enfield's comedy
"Loadsa Money" character on tv, and plenty of market traders becoming stock
traders. If you were early into IT you avoided it too.

So London and the South East was mostly OK, the rest, not so much. For those
coming onto the job market it was a time of very high youth unemployment and
limited chances. By the late 90s it had settled and most were busy spending
it.

Some of those hardest hit areas are _still_ not fully recovered. The cities
have, mostly.

My father's generation were lost in the Great Depression, then got to go to
WW2.

His father's in WW1.

We can learn from history that we don't treat the unlucky at all well, or try
and prevent damage to the next generation. Oh, and that we mostly don't learn
from history.

~~~
hoaw
I am not sure it is the same thing, but maybe in the UK it was. As you say
there have always been turmoil. But most of the time the young were seen as
getting a better deal. Factories closed and older generations suffered, but
the young got other jobs and at least to some extent benefited from the
transition. Today we are talking about how young people get it almost
universally worse from an economic standpoint and it is people in their
~forties that are winning in e.g. the housing market.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
That's exactly what I saw then too.

In the 90s recession youth unemployment was over 20% nationally. Can't find
any decent regional or city figures now, and the tories changed the way
unemployment was measured during that recession, so anything earlier is
incomparable. In Scotland, the NW and NE, and probably the Midlands it was
well over that.

Apprenticeships had recently disappeared (my generation was probably the last
where some got a chance to leave school at 16 and go into a 3 or 4 year
apprenticeship, as a few of my school friends did). Instead of going into work
with prospects they ended up on long term unemployment benefit, maybe crime or
drugs for some. Those who came out of college with engineering or
manufacturing related skills find there's loads more chasing the industrial
and engineering jobs that remained with poor chances.

Or simply take a dead end job unrelated to their qualifications, because money
- the Deliveroo and Uber of their day, and many tried to move, failed, and got
the dead end job somewhere expensive (SE). A CV with 5 or 10 years of all the
wrong experience for a chosen career. Sure, some made it through unaffected
too.

Kids coming onto the job market late 90s were fine, the economy was booming.
Still far more so in the SE though. Those in the early and mid 80s mostly were
too, unless they got unlucky with employer in the 90s recession, or bet on the
about to die skills.

That generation had few chances of being paid as much as mum or dad, buying
house or getting a mortgage until late or even the lifetime career prospects
they might. Looking at them now, many got to OK. Though much later, on less
money, in a smaller house, probably with more career and job switches and a
far harder journey. Not a better deal at all.

Sheffield, Scotland and Liverpool probably _still_ haven't forgiven the Tories
for those years. Scotland certainly hasn;t looking at election results.
Manchester and Leeds are pretty vibrant now, after many years repair and
struggle. I don't know, but would imagine the story in the US rust belt would
be frighteningly close.

~~~
hoaw
Ah, I get what you are saying. Certainly not a good situation either. I guess
the UK is a bit ahead of its time on this front. I still think there is a bit
of difference though. In earlier recessions there at least seemed to be some
recourse. Certainly harder to e.g. study in the UK I would imagine. But when
the market turned you could get a chance.

In Sweden we had had high youth unemployment for 15 years (it's "low" now at
16%), but as people study or get a bit older they get work. Today though, it
almost doesn't matter what you do. You either have to take a 100 year
mortgage, or pay some significant rent, to live in e.g. Stockholm. And if you
don't you are looking at declining job markets. It just seems like getting
screwed has become ingrained in the system. Heads they win, tails you lose.
Things are going well, you pay a lot. Things go bad, you are paid nothing.
Maybe that was always the case and it is just easier to be informed now.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
It was partly because it was policy. De-industrialising kept on throughout the
80s, not while in the recession as would have been the case in the past. Even
as recession ends industrials were still being kicked. Kids in sharp 80s shiny
suits would turn up on TV news telling us we shouldn't do yesterday's car
making, tool making or $niche any more and all go into services or banking.
Germany was far more pragmatic about it.

The biggest difference I see is housing. They keep getting more and more
absurdly expensive with no signs of stopping. Even in countries far less
attached to the idea of ownership than the UK. Which is more neoliberal policy
again - public housing is right out of fashion everywhere it seems, even
places that once did public housing really well.

------
mschuster91
> Medicare and Social Security have been spared from cuts. Programs that
> benefit younger workers and families have not.

This is a political incentive problem. Retired people tend to have free time
to engage in politics (or at least watch TV all day and get fed "news") and
they turn out to votes in droves (as they don't have to e.g. take a day off to
vote!), while young people mainly have the power to pull off a shitstorm in
social media and that's it, they don't vote enough for politicians to
prioritize them over retirees (how can they, when they have to work two jobs
to survive and are threatened with losing their job for missing work to vote -
no matter if it's illegal, someone depending on the job will NOT complain).

In addition, retirees are way better organized and actually have the free time
on their hands to do stuff like mass phone calling of representatives.

~~~
stronglikedan
While I agree that older people tend to vote in greater numbers, the excuse
that they do so because they have more free time is just that, an excuse.
Early voting and absentee ballots render that excuse irrelevant, regardless of
the number of jobs worked.

EDIT: Thanks for educating me regarding some states not offering those
options. Although, in those states, I would think most employers would make it
easier for their employees to vote on voting day. I mean, I realize that some
may not, but that would be the exception not the rule.

~~~
uncletaco
While his point about having more time is questionable, I think its fair to
point out that in some states early voting isn't an option and absentee voting
is reserved for military, disabled people, and poll watchers: like Alabama.

------
kleborp
This is an honest question I have that's tangentially related to this article
(everyone on this forum is a lot smarter than I am so apologies if this is a
stupid question):

What is the catalyst for any action/change in regards to reversing these
trends? I feel like I've been reading versions of the same article for the
last 10 years with negligible change.

~~~
tinktank
The people in power have to start representing the interests of the
millennials. This will only happen when people of that generation are in
power, or people in power are being influenced by them.

~~~
DataWorker
Millennials don’t seem to have a clue what’s in their best interest so I’m
going to disagree with you. If there were any solid ideas coming from anybody
in terms of helping millennials those ideas would have political traction. To
think that only millennials can represent millennial interests is stupid.

~~~
tinktank
We'll have to agree to disagree. Millennial lives and issues are far removed
from the current establishment to be completely alien to people in power at
present. To be disingenuous enough to believe millennials don't have a clue
what's in their best interest is stupid.

~~~
Pocketknife
Considering a majority of millennials support socialism, but also cannot
provide a meaningful definition of the term...

I don't think most have a serious position worth considering. I say this as
someone lumped in this demographic whipping boy.

There is plenty to be legitimately angry about too. I just don't trust this
generation to come up with solutions that aren't literally "let's try real
communism. This time it will work!"

~~~
tinktank
> There is plenty to be legitimately angry about too. I just don't trust this
> generation to come up with solutions that aren't literally "let's try real
> communism. This time it will work!"

What makes you feel this generation would go that far? I haven't seen anything
that's led me to believe they think this way, in my understanding, they are
more aware of and accepting of fundamentally "socialist" concepts such as
government assistance and high-taxation. That's a far cry from communism.

------
kpwagner
Federal debt and surface temperature charts are telling because they include
20+ year projections periods--and of course those projections are dire (and
bullshit). It's clear the story this "opinion columnist" (bullshit artist) is
trying to craft.

To me, net worth by age group is the troubling chart. If I read this
correctly, median net worth for all age groups under 44 years old is
significantly negative. The scale isn't clear since the chart is indexed. What
do you think is the source of so much debt? My guess: student loans and home
mortgages.

~~~
timerol
Note that a mortgage should not lead to negative net worth in the general
case. Because you own a house, a mortgage with 0% down payment should have no
immediate effect on your net worth. There are people who are upside-down on
their mortgages, but that isn't the common case.

~~~
kpwagner
That's true. I misread the chart anyway, so it isn't necessarily saying
anything about debt levels.

------
IIAOPSWmobile
>Given these trends, you’d think the government would be trying to help the
young. But it’s not. If anything, federal and state policy is going in the
other direction

guess which age group is not represented in congress

------
40acres
I filed my taxes with Turbo Tax the other day and they compared my salary to
other people my age (27) in my state (Oregon), I didn't double check the
numbers but Turbo Tax reported that I made about 5 times the average 27 year
old in Oregon.

What I've noticed is that there is a huge inequality gap among millennials as
well, a lot of millennials have crushing debt and poor job prospects yes --
but others get a job at FAANG at 21. It will be interesting to see how this
all plays out as millennials age.

~~~
downrightmike
What will happen is those that have better options will have kids. Similar to
why there are so many people with last names of miller or smith. Both trades
were protected to a point by not going to war and having the means to have
kids. If we still went with our father's trades as last names, the next
generation would probably be full (relatively) of Jane and Joe Engineer.

------
rwmj
This is related to the topic of this interesting book about how baby boomers
stole resources from their own children (although obviously the supposed cause
is quite different from the article):

[https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pinch-Boomers-Childrens-Future-
Shou...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pinch-Boomers-Childrens-Future-
Should/dp/1848872321)

------
oftenwrong
Larry Littlefield writes a lot of interesting blog posts on generational
equity, mainly with a focus on the US, and New York in particular:

[https://larrylittlefield.wordpress.com/category/generational...](https://larrylittlefield.wordpress.com/category/generational-
equity/)

------
pjdemers
The first chart shows the trends started around 1978. Someone who was 25 then
would be 65 now. And the worst time to be 25ish was the mid 1980s. That cohort
is in their late 50s now. So I bet the 65+ line will fall as those who were
less than 25 in 1978 start to join that group.

------
RhysU
The income and wealth plots seem misleading... No one has been aged 25-34 for
nearly 30 years. And 65+ life expectancy has gone up.

------
systematical
There is an income gap that continues to grow. I think that is the real
culprit. Those at the top continue taking more slices of the pie. Bad
capitalism is amazingly resilient. After decades of being pushed back on
things like unionization, pensions, monopolies and taxes. Capitalism has begun
pushing back and winning.

The problem with this beyond the wealth gap is you're going to see an over
correction with hard left policies. This is going to be yet another
interesting election cycle. I just hope enough moderates remain to create
reasonable solutions to these problems.

