>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
The Fleecing of Millennials
11–20 of 132 posts
Re: The Fleecing of Millennials
#12This 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.
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.
Re: The Fleecing of Millennials
#13It'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.
> It's cute that they call it a fleecing
Not sure it's cute but it's definitely odd. Fleecing implies that something was taken from millennials.
> have to look to millenials for care
Are you implying that millenials are more selfish than previous generations? Do you have a basis for that assertion?
Re: The Fleecing of Millennials
#14This 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.
In all seriousness, probably something that baby boomers can't escape - death.
Re: The Fleecing of Millennials
#15The 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...
[1] https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/growth-in-student-l...
[2] https://www.kqed.org/news/70585/csu-and-uc-tuition-hikes-ove...
Re: The Fleecing of Millennials
#16This 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.
Revolution or some other structural change like lack of resources (including labor) that shake up the power dynamics.
Re: The Fleecing of Millennials
#17Does 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?
Probably not as glaring since interest rates are much much lower now than they were then, and the crash of 07/08 hadn't happened yet
Re: The Fleecing of Millennials
#18This 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.
Revolution or some other structural change like lack of resources (including labor) that shake up the power dynamics.
The extended government shutdown had me wary for this exact reason. I wonder how many more weeks it could have gone before some very serious change could have happened very quickly.
Re: The Fleecing of Millennials
#19> 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 shits…
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 the…
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.
Re: The Fleecing of Millennials
#20Boomer'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.