| ▲ | johnnyanmac 7 hours ago |
| >and people recover. So you read nothing about how graduates during 2008 pretty much had forever stunted careers? They aren't put on the streets, but it's clear some very long term damage is being done to people simply as a matter of bad luck. |
|
| ▲ | thewebguyd 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > So you read nothing about how graduates during 2008 pretty much had forever stunted careers? Myself included. Graduated in '08, had to work various minimum wage jobs in retail for several years because no one was hiring. I'm just now at a point in my career, nearing 40, where I should have been at 28. Degree doesn't matter much when your only work experience is 5 years of working at Starbucks, and you barely have personal projects because you're too busy working 2 jobs to just to survive. Those of us who suffered through that time period barely recovered, and many didn't recover at all. It shaped an entire generation. |
| |
| ▲ | smileson2 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm a little older but I have found it strange how well economic crisis has been almost wiped from our collective memories it was a horrible period and I have many friends who are in the same boat especially those not in software | | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think it is wiped from memories because it very specifically affected one or two years of college graduates (that had the experience the parent comment mentioned). Not an entire generation. The data shows millennials as a whole are better off than boomers were at their age. | | |
| ▲ | AngryData 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A lot of the data used to claim millenials are doing better off is based on nonsense like "millenials have larger TVs on average" or "millenials all have smart phones yet boomers didn't have mobile phones", or equating 1 person making 3 times the median wage and 2 people making nothing as just as good as 3 different people making median wage. | |
| ▲ | mvr123456 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The data shows millennials as a whole are better off than boomers were at their age. Perhaps true if you go east far enough, seems objectively wrong for the majority of the west though. Honest question, if you think this and it isn't just rage bait.. what data supports it? Scott Galloway disagrees and offers hard data, and goes as far as calling it intergenerational theft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E | | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Perhaps true if you go east far enough, seems objectively wrong for the majority of the west though. Much of the (American) millennials generation believes a story that they’re worse off. I feel it is a convenient story for people to tell themselves and blame someone else for their perceived losses. But I pulled up several articles supporting my claim with a quick search, even though the opposite narrative is more widespread. Example article about how inflation adjusted net worth is higher for millennials than it was for boomers at the same age: https://www.newsweek.com/millennials-financially-better-off-... Galloway isn’t necessarily wrong in the individual data points he raises. But if you look at the sum of all of the factors - higher rents, more student debt, etc but also the positive things - the net worth in the end is higher for millennials. And remember this is inflation adjusted already. | | |
| ▲ | Den_VR 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The numbers that interest me are comparing home ownership rates at various ages between the generational groups Lots of research shows about a 8-10% gap, that only at very specific ages finally achieved parity. The consequence of this is a difference in wealth building, economic security, and family planning for millions. | | |
| ▲ | aianus 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | To add to that, an unemployed 28 year old living with his parents in the house that they own is a "homeowner" in most of these homeowner stats. | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why does home ownership on its own matter? Net worth is inclusive of housing and assets and debt. And net worth is a direct measure of the wealth that is being built. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because homes are pretty much the only asset a millenial would have at that time that would have grown over time. a 08-9 graducate wouldn't really have much money to spar for stocks unless they made really lucky bets or happened to mine a fewbitcoin they forgot about. Most all else would have inflated or depreciated. | |
| ▲ | aianus 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As a thought experiment would you not feel (much) poorer if houses suddenly cost >$5 million tomorrow and you didn't own one yet? Even if everything else cost the same? Even if everything else cost the same and your net worth went up $100k? | |
| ▲ | actionfromafar 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Someone posted this already but a more useful "net worth" is how big of a shock can take without paying multiples on the sticker price. And even homes are now sieving into institutional buyers. https://medium.com/newco/your-financial-shock-wealth-4845e6d... | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | aydyn 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've read this as well, heres an economist article with a graph: https://archive.ph/Y3vvz However, there are certainly a lot of conflicting studies and data out there. And to be honest, it doesnt feel true given how much young people complain on the internet. Its hard to see which asserion is correct. It isnt necessarily correct just because one study says its so. | |
| ▲ | orwin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's the average. Please compare the median wealth (especially seeing the absurd paper wealth of crypto bro and stock influencers who are almost exclusively millennials). [Edit] also inflation is calculated based on average consumption. So you will notice that toys, clothing and electronic devices (TVs, cooking robots), all cheaper and cheaper (due to enshitiffication and quality decrease) count more for inflation than education, cars, housing and probably a lot of other stuff a 25-35 yo care more about. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | pyuser583 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | sorry your math seems strange. You graduated from college in ‘08 - 17 years ago. You’re nearing 40. So let’s say you graduated at 23 … you’ve only had a college level job for five years? The economy has been moving upward since 2013 - 12 years ago. What were you doing from 2013 to 2020? I ask because I also graduated around ‘08. I’ve been a software developer since 2016. I’m currently a senior dev with almost a decade of experience. There were really crappy years to start with, but I feel I’ve made up for it substantially. My own parents graduated in the late 70s during a terrible economic recession. It seems weathering economic recessions have been a tradition for several generations. I still remember articles almost identical to the ones I see now; “this generation is screwed and there is no possible salvation.” It’s getting old. | |
| ▲ | Den_VR 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I'm just now at a point in my career, nearing 40, where I should have been at 28. What or who is the standard for where you “should have been at 28?” |
|
|
| ▲ | adamredwoods 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Here's the study on that: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology/article/77/4/78... >> Across a generation’s life course, early-life advantages are magnified through disparate occupational and social trajectories that lead to wide late-life disparities in financial and health resources, in a process first termed by Crystal and Shea as one of “cumulative advantage and disadvantage” (CAD; Crystal, 1982, 1986, 2020; Crystal et al., 1992, 2017; Crystal & Shea, 1990b; Dannefer, 1987, 1988). Dannefer (1987) described the trend of increasing inequality over the life course as the “Matthew effect,” applying a biblical dictum first used by Merton (1968), stating that “to he who has much, more is given, and to he who has little, even that is taken.” This ongoing process has also been described as an “obdurate tendency” for increasing inequality over the life course (Dannefer, 2020). |
|
| ▲ | Saigonautica 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I mean, it caused me to emigrate to a growth economy. If I stayed in the West, I don't think I would have been OK. |
