Live data from Hacker News

Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'

bbc.com

161–170 of 203 posts

Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'

#161
My feeling is that we've been giving our wealth away for trinkets.

True wealth sustains life: strong social ties, housing, food and the means of production.

We've been convinced to trade true wealth away for non-essentials. Fancy vacations in far away places and 2-3 cruises a year-people used to do that maybe once in their lives, 50inch flat panels in every second room in the house, huge houses with fewer kids in them, 64 bit cellphones, fancy kitchens with wolf stoves and granite counter tops all these things are non-essential.

My parents used to save for years to buy a new car or to buy a new stereo. It was easy, just write "New car" on an envelope and put cash in it every month, then 4-5 years later you bought the car cash, no loan. This went even moreso with luxury items like new TVs and stereos.

The quality of cars and electronics has increased, but the quality of our food and our social lives has decreased.

Cooking of real food at home must be on the decline. Every time I go to the grocery store every other person's order consists entirely of boxed processed food.

Instead of cooking and having dinner with the kids, in our industry, we now get texts[1] on our fancy cellphones at 7:00 pm to fight a fire in production because no software company wants to properly plan anything anymore[2] and then we feel awesome about solving the problem we created by being disorganized scatterbrains.

My suggestion, buy as many of the essentials of life in cash. The rest that you have to borrow for; pay it off quickly. Invest in long term investments and start early. Be frugal and forget about the fancy new doodad, or if you insist save up for it an pay for it cash. Cook at home and spend time with you kids and your friends.

[1] A text, god forbid not a human voice! People are addicted to texting because it allows them to have conversations with multiple people at once. We communicate more than ever but those conversations are shallower.

[2] Fail fast + short term methodologies.

Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that just a measure of perception?

It's three-fourths of Millennials themselves who believe that, so it's not just the perception of other generations.

It's what they've been told from birth by increasingly useless older generations.

Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the past administrations faced such partisan Congresses, they've only gotten more extreme over the years.

None of the past administrations faced such partisan Congresses, This is unthinking lack of research. You only need to go back to Clinton to find a congress that vociferously was against him, to the point they impeached him. Clinton handled it because he was very good at handling compromise and the politics game.

The current Congress is the mentally unhinged bastard stepchild of that one.

Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'

#164
post #4

I think for many millennials, the conclusion of this article doesn't come as a surprise. As a member between the Gen X and the millennial crowd, I've certainly seen how much harder people just a few years younger than me have it as well as how much easier for those slightly older. Older generations don't realize that their wealth is primarily built up in what is really an elaborate ponzi scheme of sorts, money which…

Stagnating wages, rapidly increasing house prices, bad terms for renters, increasing university costs. If I were 20 I'd consider working remote and just go live in a much cheaper country. You could get a boomer lifestyle yet!

Probably better to live your productive years in a place where there is money available and then retire on a much cheaper country.

Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stagnating wages, rapidly increasing house prices, bad terms for renters, increasing university costs. If I were 20 I'd consider working remote and just go live in a much cheaper country. You could get a boomer lifestyle yet!

Probably better to live your productive years in a place where there is money available and then retire on a much cheaper country.

I really dislike this attitude. We don't know if we'll live that long and I'll enjoy it more now when I'm still young and healthy enough to do stuff.

Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'

#166
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The factual errors in your argument are extreme. Working class wages were proportionately higher in 1970. Drawing a dividing line is hard, but somewhere between 1970 and 1980, wage gains became decoupled from productivity increases. Medicine quite simply hasn't advanced significantly since 1970. Access to medicine by the underserved has, and accounts for much of increases in outcomes, as well as reduced environmental…

Yeah, my 'factual errors' are 'extreme', and then you rebut pretending that books don't exist anymore. You're painting an overly rosy picture of the past, and you are wrong about medicine not improving in the past 45 years (mental health in particular). Not to mention that you seem to think that the civil rights movement was done and dusted by 1970. Union participation is not a measure in and of itself of life qualit…

Those things of which you speak of as possible are indeed possible. They are not, however, true facts which reflect the reality of the past 46 years. As the citations I've given support. Strongly.

They are, by the way, books. Of whose existence I'm somewhat aware, and which was a point of my earlier comment.

I'd suggest you read some.

Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'

#167
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stagnating wages, rapidly increasing house prices, bad terms for renters, increasing university costs. If I were 20 I'd consider working remote and just go live in a much cheaper country. You could get a boomer lifestyle yet!

It seems hard enough to establish credibility for an in-office job these days. I can't even imagine trying to get a remote gig. Perhaps that says more about me though? Granted, I've deliberately eschewed larger cities, and as a consequence I've had a harder time convincing people that just because my degree was in math I can still be a competent developer.

I've found that my past employers actually didn't care at all about my degree. I actually never finished university but it never comes up. They want to see what I've built and hat is the determining factor. The first job is the hardest since you have to build a portfolio on your own. After that it has seemed pretty easy.

Not trying to refute your point but rather to suggest that there are other ways to get n the door aside from leaning on your degree.

Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'

#168
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of us are. My parents are Boomers and we were born between 78 and 82. Technically being born in 78 makes you GenX. Yet if you have a brother born only 4 years later, it's another generation? We had the exact same experience, Atari 2600 on a TV that is now weird to even think existed. No TV remotes, walk up and change the channel. Rotary phones, city directories and phone books. Need the time and temp? Y…

Because "generations" are mostly marketing bullshit that are constantly being adjusted to sell the latest newborn consumers youth products. As a GenXer, I always thought it was funny that GenX was defined down to the point that Douglas Coupland (b.1961), the guy who literally wrote the book, was too old to be a GenXer. (The other aspect to this is that when I was young, almost everything I read about "Generation X" w…

The "generations" are astrology signs for marketers. Make enough vague implications about a large enough group of people and enough will be "true" that they will sort of identify with it.

Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'

#169
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think having no cap on income for SS would make sense and make the system solvent - so basically, cut a tax only for the wealthy retired folks living off of backs of young folks, who are not exempt and they will never get there by subsidizing old folks in exchange for interest payments on private loans in the 7% range.

But the super wealthy -- the ones the Sanders crowd really dislike -- don't tend to have earned income anyway. They primarily benefit from capital gains which are entirely exempt from SS and Medicare entirely.

There's still a huge gap from $112 to having income in long term capital gains tax. Just because there are more things to do with capital gains tax reform, doesn't mean we can't have common sense reforms like this one.

Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think having no cap on income for SS would make sense and make the system solvent - so basically, cut a tax only for the wealthy retired folks living off of backs of young folks, who are not exempt and they will never get there by subsidizing old folks in exchange for interest payments on private loans in the 7% range.

That would make SS a tax which it isn't supposed to be right now.

SS IS a tax, when you have a dedicated line item in your paycheck. I would like to see some benefit down the line from that tax, wouldn't you?
Post reply on HN