
Millennials Are Poorer Than Their Parents, Investigation Finds - 6stringmerc
http://www.vice.com/read/its-not-your-imagination-millennials-are-poorer-than-old-people-vgtrn
======
s_kilk
This is a blogspam wrapper for the original Guardian article:
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/07/revealed-30-yea...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/07/revealed-30-year-
economic-betrayal-dragging-down-generation-y-income)

~~~
s_dev
It's in a wrapper to avoid being flagged as a repost:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11238360](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11238360)

~~~
6stringmerc
Didn't know it was a repost, I missed that one. Not sure I'm really too keen
on the headline used on that, seems needlessly combative.

~~~
beeboop
As a generation Y person myself, I feel like older generations are combative
against newer generations. Whether it was willful neglect or negligence, I am
not sure, but the reality is that I am getting a pretty raw deal when compared
to my parents and grandparents. Considering the societal or moral obligations
parents have (or should have) to their children, I wouldn't say "betrayal" is
too far off the mark. Apparently the sense of obligation from an older
generation to a newer one doesn't extend very well when viewed in aggregate.

~~~
6stringmerc
Oh I can agree that there's some palpable friction at play. I'm not sure it
was betrayal as much as pure, unadulterated selfishness. Generationally
speaking, even the parents (Baby Boomers) and their parents (Greatest
Generation) are currently in pretty bad shape as well - all except for the X%
who were doing the fleecing rather than getting taken along for the ride. It's
not really hyperbole to look at the trillions in outstanding debt (not just
Federal - have a look at the Muni market) and conclude that the Generation Y
and Z will essentially be debt slaves based on decisions of the deceased. It's
pretty disturbing on a fundamental level.

------
mcphage
Of course they are.

(1) College is mandatory for a lot more jobs, and college costs a lot more
than it used to.

(2) Houses cost a lot more than they used to, so more people are renting, thus
locking them out of that route of asset building.

(3) Jobs are harder to come by, and pay worse.

(4) Maybe you consider it unnecessary, but there are a lot more monthly
expenses (internet, cellular phone) than there used to be.

So expenses are up, incomes are down, and wealth building is blocked off. I
don't see how the conclusion would be anything else, with merely a moment's
thought.

~~~
bkjelden
I'd add to this that millennials are getting married later than any previous
generation, and marriage allows one to share resources with a partner and
therefore reduce expenses.

~~~
Mikeb85
And we're getting married later because 'adulthood' starts later. It used to
be the case that you could support a family with a job you get at 18.

If you did go to university, it was easy to pay for and generally not too hard
to graduate in 4 years. A bachelor's degree was valuable. Today, good luck
graduating in 4 years. Not to mention, a bachelor's degree is worth far less,
graduate degrees or dual degrees are the thing now.

By the time you go through university (5-8 years), work your (probably unpaid)
internship, and get a job that gives you so much as a hope of a decent, middle
class life, you're probably 25-28 years old. And unless you found your future
spouse in university, then there's at least a year of dating, a year or two of
engagement (since wedding venues are damn near impossible to find), and you're
getting married at 30+.

Anyhow of course that's above the average, plenty get married young, but then
again, plenty are poor too. Poor people can get married younger by skipping
the whole university thing, but then that does diminish their income potential
for their lives. This is what I did, then went to university. Now I'm still
30+, albeit married, but no kids yet.

Anyhow, the point is, marriage generally comes as a result of financial
stability, not the other way around, though you're right that it does reduce
expenses, if both spouses work. But because of cultural constructs, stability
needs to exist before people couple up.

~~~
gregatragenet3
If degrees are worth far less, yet cost far more than in the past - why do
people pursue them as if they are mandatory? Intertia? Stigmatization of not
having a degree by society/government? I ask in all seriousness, as a large
percentage of the most successful (and therefore best compensated) people I
work with in tech don't have degrees.

~~~
Mikeb85
> If degrees are worth far less, yet cost far more than in the past - why do
> people pursue them as if they are mandatory?

A degree is the new high school diploma. It's game theory really. If no one
has a degree, it's super valuable, so whoever gets one will have a huge
advantage. So everyone gets one because it's the best individual decision.
Today, since everyone has one, if you're one of the few that don't, you're at
a massive disadvantage. So you still get one for fear of being left behind,
even if the relative worth is far less.

Tech (rather programming) is kind of an exception because it's easier to show
what you're capable of, which allows you to bypass the requirement. There are
plenty of trades and 'artistic' fields which allow for this as well. But for
most fields, a degree is a sort of 'guarantee' of a minimum level of
knowledge, dedication and even financial means. There's no Github for business
people.

~~~
mooreds
> There's no Github for business people.

Is that the sound of opportunity knocking?

------
6stringmerc
Other than my Dad giving me the strong advice from personal experience that
"Making a living as a musician is not a pleasant or steady lifestyle choice"
the one thing I've been glad to have heard long ago was "You'll probably never
have the same standard of living as we've had in this home."

Little did he know that a few years after that, and once I was on my own two
feet, his employer of 30+ years would dump his pension on the US taxpayers and
gut his benefits. Even he wasn't able to achieve the retirement peace of mind
he worked for all those years. In hindisight, his statement plus what I
witnessed happen doesn't make me feel like I'm missing out an 'entitlement'
but rather a general suspiciousness the working world is rigged.

~~~
aantix
Who did he work for?

~~~
6stringmerc
A US commercial airline. Several have done the same kind of maneuver so I feel
it's at least somewhat obfuscated the particular one.

------
gedy
I know there's a myriad of causes, but friends - avoid debt, even if your
peers, parents, media, whatever encourage you that it's "okay" for college,
nice house, etc.

It just boggles me that friends would borrow huge tuition and dorm costs for
private college out of state, to get something like a Communications Degree
with low income prospects. Even if they are passionate about the subject, they
could've easily gotten it cheaper at a local state school and living at home.
Or, taken their first few years at community college, etc. Willingness to
borrow is at least one of the factors for rising costs.

Debt is slavery and steals from your future.

~~~
fefifofu
Debt is great if used appropriately. Most people don't use it correctly.

Debt is supposed to match the life of the asset. If you have a house that
lasts 25 years or longer, then a mortgage of 25 years is OK. If you have a car
that has value for 5 years, then a matching loan is 5 years is OK. If you go
on vacation, there is no lasting asset, therefore should be paid in cash (ie.
saved up for). Same with that expensive meal.

~~~
Someone1234
I don't even understand what you're trying to get at.

Homes increase in value while vehicles decrease in value over time. But you're
using the same metric to figure out if you should borrow against them both..?
A lot of people view homes as an investment and vehicles as a sunk cost.

I also don't get the whole concept of a vehicle going from "value" to "no
value" after exactly 5 years. Vehicles don't depreciate like that, they
constantly lose value at a somewhat static rate (aside from sudden damage).

~~~
fefifofu
The point is to match the debt to the asset.

As the car depreciates at a static rate, it is OK to pay off car debt at a
static rate too (ie. monthly loan payments).

A house actually depreciates in value just like a car, at a static rate, but
over a longer period (say 25 years). So it is OK to pay the mortgage off with
a monthly payment for 25 years.

I think labeling homes as an investment and vehicles as a sunk costs is a
problem that the general public has. Houses need to be maintain and upgraded
to keep (or improve) its value. House values definitely don't always go up -
as seen in the subprime mortgage crisis.

Sorry if I implied that the car goes from 100% to 0% value instantly. If it
did, then I should pay off the loan in the same fashion. In fact, lets say a
new car loses 25% of its value immediately once you drive off the dealership
lot. Then you should have a car loan only for the 75% of value remaining and
should have paid 25% upfront... match the debt to asset.

Vehicles can be considered an investment if it generates income (eg. taxis,
commercial airplanes).

------
jessaustin
Hasn't this also been true for "Generation X"? As if the stupid name weren't
bad enough...

~~~
MrZongle2
Oddly enough, in the majority of these articles (and related discussions), I
don't see much mention of Gen X. It's like nobody was born between the late
60s and early 80s.

~~~
coldtea
They are neither up-and-coming struggling young people, nor retiring, in-power
older people.

So they don't matter as much regarding this for now... in 10-15 years though,
when baby boomers will be gone...

~~~
jessaustin
This might be a bit optimistic. Boomers have been arriving early and
overstaying their welcome in any and every situation for the entirety of their
existence. With our luck, the great biotech transition will take place just in
time for us to be stuck with them forever.

------
femto113
This will only get worse, since millennials will also be saddled with paying
their parent's generation's pensions. Inflation is the obvious answer, I just
wonder if it will come without a major upheaval first.

------
vannevar
The study seems to be looking at the relative distribution of wealth, in which
case the conclusion is just another way of saying that more and more income is
being captured by the wealthy. Older people in any generation are going to
tend to be in the higher percentiles of wealth, so a general trend in wealth
distribution from the poor to the rich will tend to favor them and disfavor
the young. No need for rationalizing based on millenials' character, or even
their micro-economics. The simple mathematical fact is that capitalism, absent
some correctional force like progressive taxation, trends inevitably toward
greater wealth and income disparity between rich and poor. It's built into the
system; not a bug, but a feature.

------
CodeCube
Next up, water is wet

------
tunichtgut
What i realised is, that the millennial generation (im gen y) has spawned a
yolo (you only live once) or better to say, yoln (you only live now) attitude.
They dont have much hope in their future, so they tend to live now. Not
tomorrow. They dont safe money, they spend money, they max out their
borrowing, they max out consumption. From their perspective, its perfectly
logic to do so. And even some of my old friends, the kids from the 80s, have
started to live with the "yoln" live style.

------
programminggeek
Employee pay is stagnant, prices for all things are rising, and personal debt
for the average person is largely out of control.

We are all wage slaves now.

------
bobby_9x
Many are poor due to their own choices.

I know many millennials that spend way too much on the newest gadgets/cell
phones (I spend $30/month and get a cheap phone as opposed to the hundreds of
dollars many pay on a plan and a new phone).

Jobs are also an issue. Millennials have more education than their parents,
but many choose not to use it. I know at least 5 millennials that either quit
a well-paying job or just refuse to work at any company that isn’t ”changing
the world”.

I attribute it to entitlement. They feel they are owed a satisfying and well-
paying job, when in reality, you need to earn it over many years.

More proof of this is in their voting habits. Sanders is tje entitlement
president and is supported, by far, by millennials.

------
MadManE
I find this to be more than a little disingenuous. While it is true that
millennials are poorer, the reasoning isn't so cut-and-dried.

I fully place the blame on the attitude of entitlement. There is the
expectation that everything will be handed to anyone who just follows the pre-
set path of college-->office job-->retirement, without the acknowledgement of
all the behind-the-scenes effort that it takes.

College is more expensive, but it's not impossible. Some non-college careers
are now more profitable because of this also. No matter what some people say,
just showing up is not going to cut it. You need to do your job well and
advocate for yourself to get raises/promotions/opportunities.

This is not to say that it's easy to get ahead. But making the "right" choices
and having a little temporary discomfort or making the "wrong" choices and
committing to a life of debt is pretty standard throughout history. We just
have a much larger group of people with access to mass marketing tools than
before, so we get to hear about it more often.

~~~
6stringmerc
And to whom would you lay the blame of creating the atmosphere of entitlement?
Is it a construct that Millenials decided to work up through their Elementary,
Junior, and High School educations? It doesn't seem rational to point out
'entitlement' without context as to where such a trend came from. Would you
agree the Baby Boomer "Me Generation" set up the stage for what we're seeing
today?

~~~
MadManE
But who set the stage for the Baby Boomers? Do we blame the previous
generation for that?

At some point, you need to take responsibility for your own actions. Even if
the situation that you're in isn't your fault, it IS up to you what you do to
get out of it.

~~~
6stringmerc
So you do agree there's context that is important? To answer your question,
yes, absolutely look through history for understanding how "The Greatest
Generation" could breed the "Me Generation" and now here we are.

To put it another way, the US political and economic system is a giant game of
Jenga, and by the time Millenials have showed up, the tower is rife with
holes, wobbly, and on the brink of failure - these weren't the actions of the
Millenials, but yet claims like yours seem to pass the buck in a blase
fashion.

~~~
MadManE
My argument is that the context is irrelevant. You have to do what you can
with the hand you're dealt, but ultimately, if you're not willing to work for
things, you will be poorer than someone who is.

I also find it ironic that you use the term "pass the buck".

