|
Space Gopher posted:Also, even the millennials with degrees and This is completely true, anecdotally for me. My colleagues are all on sizeable Defined Benefit pensions with second homes/gold club memberships, and quite often the topic of saving comes up - those of us in the Milennial cohort save a crazy amount via various means, way higher than they do. Our marginal propensity to spend on nearly everything is much, much lower and, if anything, has reduced as we have (painstakingly) moved up the corporate ladder. I genuinely think that the Great Recession has broken our brains forever, or at the very least it has inculated this idea that 'this all could end in 6 months, cushion everything'. edit : anecdote snype
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
Imagine unironically posting "but not all millenials are poor! you can't say millenials are poor!" and then spending two pages defending it before having the gall to accuse other people of strawmanning primo stuff
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Most of the complaining about what Millennials don't buy is mostly about them having differing tastes from Boomers. End of story. Aside from average pay and net worth differences, they just aren't as interested in throwing money at the same thing Boomers did. They may be killing suburban tract homes, muscle cars, and malls. Meanwhile, urban apartments, hybrid cars, craft beer and avocados are hot markets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Please cite some statistics about how a "huge portion" of Millennials are rich. Don't you spend a lot of time posting about how techies in Silicon Valley have too much money in the Unicorn thread? That demographic that you spend a lot of time complaining about might be who Xae is referring to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:It is important to remember that plenty of boomers have been laid off and struggling over the past decade. The "cohort" of people moving back in with their parents due to economic hardship includes people in their 50s. I don't think boomers are still working unless they're working in their 70's. People in their 50's were born in the 1960's, they're hippies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Don't you spend a lot of time posting about how techies in Silicon Valley have too much money in the Unicorn thread? That demographic that you spend a lot of time complaining about might be who Xae is referring to. Techies in Silicon Valley is a tiny rear end fraction of all Millennials, so thanks for proving my point. Those people are the 1% of our generation, you can't point to them and go "Well, looks like Millennials are doing great overall!" 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think boomers are still working unless they're working in their 70's. People in their 50's were born in the 1960's, they're hippies. My parents were born in '58 and '59. They are boomers. They were never hippies. They both still work. They were both negatively impacted by the recession. Setting my personal anecdotes aside, a vast number of people who were adolescents in the 60s neither identified nor were identified as hippies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think boomers are still working unless they're working in their 70's. People in their 50's were born in the 1960's, they're hippies.  the hippies were boomersboomers are going through retirement right now but a lot of them are nearing retirement or working past it for various reasons. my folks have 'retired' but both of them still have part time jobs because they'd go crazy with nothing to do all week. and there are plenty who unfortunately have no choice but to keep working for survival
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Well yes obviously they aren't all hippies my point is that "boomer" seems a weird word to apply to someone born twenty years after the end of the second world war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think boomers are still working unless they're working in their 70's. People in their 50's were born in the 1960's, they're hippies. Most people who came of age in the 60s and 70s weren't hippies. Like how most people who came of age in the 80s weren't punk rockers. Ditto 50s and greasers. Ditto for the 90s and grundge/goths, etc. Sub cultures define generations in pop culture despite only being a small part of then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well yes obviously they aren't all hippies my point is that "boomer" seems a weird word to apply to someone born twenty years after the end of the second world war. yeah generational labels are super vague and only useful for handwavy generalizations in america tho the "summer of love" was 1967, so pretty much all of the low level participants in the hippie movement aka college students aged roughly 17-23 in 1967 are firmly baby boomers. the older hippie leaders like abbie hoffman are silent generation aka born in the 1930s
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Xae posted:Because if a huge portion of the target population isn't effected that means the "target" is wrong. This isn't really true. It's fine to say that generational cohorts are poorly assigned and not incredibly useful (I don't necessarily disagree, at least wrt to economics), but the effects we're talking about are statistically evident in the group in question. Millennials, as a group, have a lower median income and net worth than previous generations at similar life stages. Pointing out that this isn't true of all millennials is silly since income/wealth outcomes are probabilistic across groups and we're talking about distributions, not individuals. In any case, this is already getting way more pedantic than I intended. I was really just taking issue with the "not all millennials are poor!" response, since it's needlessly dismissive and doesn't even really address the point that anyone is trying to make.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
The boomer generation is huge. I've heard some people argue that even children born in the late 60s belong to the group.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This isn't really true. It's fine to say that generational cohorts are poorly assigned and not incredibly useful (I don't necessarily disagree, at least wrt to economics), but the effects we're talking about are statistically evident in the group in question. Millennials, as a group, have a lower median income and net worth than previous generations at similar life stages. Pointing out that this isn't true of all millennials is silly since income/wealth outcomes are probabilistic across groups and we're talking about distributions, not individuals. The group of "Millennials" is so bifurcated it is meaningless. And we're starting to see that happen in all age brackets. The population is divided by "got the 'right' education and got a good job" and people who didn't. The average is dropping because yeah the last 8 years have been poo poo economically, but the real tale is that the middle is being pulled apart. People are either being pushed down into the lower middle class or being pushed up into the upper middle class. Older groups are more insulated from this because their wealth is less dependant on their current income than younger people. People need to stop making it a generational issue because when you do the "problem" will always be seen as your generation. Millenials keep leading with their chin and saying "the problem is Millenials are poor" because you are walking into the response of "Yes, the problem is Millenials".
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Xae posted:The group of "Millennials" is so bifurcated it is meaningless. And we're starting to see that happen in all age brackets. the main difference is that forty years ago if you were a white man without a college education you could get by. now you're screwed just like white women and persons of color historically have been
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:the thing about millenial housing is that we're not satisfied with cheap tract housing so even though housing is arguably cheap in some areas it's nowhere that the bulk of millenials want to live, who are instead contributing to soaring intown prices Well, and the people who did want cheap tract housing in convenient/older locations can't buy it because the boomer occupants refuse to sell theirs. The same boomers who bitch about Millenials Not Buying Houses don't want to sell their house, they just want tthe neighbors' houses to be bought so their property value might go up. Discendo Vox posted:Grenfell's not postmodern, nor was its facade. Postmodernists include a number of architects, James Stirling being a great example, who prioritized the effectiveness of the building in their use of postmodern methods. Yeah the Grenfell situation was just the utterly bizarre fact that Britain lets you legally use known-flammable cladding on buildings, even though the US and most other civilized countries restrict that kind of cladding's use to low buildings that are usually not for any residential use, due to their dangers without proper fire suppression systems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The same boomers who bitch about Millenials Not Buying Houses don't want to sell their house, they just want tthe neighbors' houses to be bought so their property value might go up. They either want to sell (but at a higher price), or they are financially illiterate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Well, and the people who did want cheap tract housing in convenient/older locations can't buy it because the boomer occupants refuse to sell theirs. not necessarily, i'd say a lot of the boomer holdouts able but not willing to sell probably aren't living in "starter homes" instead of larger empty nest mcmansions a noticable trend in millennial housing patterns is a marked preference for intown living, for a number of different reasons - lifestyle preference, avoidance of long commutes, inability to enter homeownership because of inability to save or secure a down payment, or the only way you can survive without living with parents is to stack in with roomies college style. there is a clear preference tho for less home closer to the city than a larger home further from the city, because millennials aren't terrified of urban living like their parents were anecdotal but i've been looking at the market in my area since i'm trying to buy a house (also a big trigger for homebuying is starting a family, which many millenials are putting off for various reasons). the affordable starter homes in an old subdivision that is now classified as intown barely stay on the market for a week or two, where i've seen cheap houses out in my old hometown linger and linger on the market for months at a time. personally i'm trying to get a condo because i hate doing yard work and they barely stay on the market for more than a few days boner confessor fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Aug 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Xae posted:The group of "Millennials" is so bifurcated it is meaningless. And we're starting to see that happen in all age brackets. The division still isn't that clean. College educated millennials on average only earn marginally more than their non-college educated parents would have, with the additional cost of college and a minimum of four years out of the workforce strapped on. And just to be clear, I don't really fundamentally disagree with you at all. I'm using the term "millennial" here as a stand-in for adults that entered the workforce sometime in the last 15 years or so, and it just so happens that that's the group where these effects are most prominent. You can stop using the label if you want, but we're still ultimately talking about economic advantages or disadvantages conferred by time of birth. quote:People need to stop making it a generational issue because when you do the "problem" will always be seen as your generation. Millenials keep leading with their chin and saying "the problem is Millenials are poor" because you are walking into the response of "Yes, the problem is Millenials". Someone who points to data like this and says "aha, the problem is with millennials!" isn't arguing in good faith and is never going see eye to eye with you anyway. If you look at the data in a broader context you're still essentially saying that people who grew up in the post-war boom were advantaged by birth, and that's going to cause people who want to feel that their wealth is entirely earned to chafe whether you use the "millennial" label or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well yes obviously they aren't all hippies my point is that "boomer" seems a weird word to apply to someone born twenty years after the end of the second world war. It's still true though. The Baby Boom was from the end of WWII to the invention of the pill. It's an unusually large generation, but "Boomer" is still the correct term for anyone born from 1946 to 1964. And if you think for a minute it's obvious that no one born in the Sixties could be a hippie. Hippies were in their twenties when they were hippie-ing around. People born in the 60s had their formative years in the 70s and 80s - they were Yuppies. There's no official standard for naming generations, and it's very common for a cohort of births to have multiple generation nicknames - I was Gen Y as a kid, then The Pepsi Generation, and now I'm a millennial, even though most people complaining about millennials are picturing kids in their early twenties, or even teens/tweens, who technically aren't millennials. Their generation hasn't been named yet, but I imagine they'll get some cool moniker just by dint of being the last babies born before the nuclear apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Their generation hasn't been named yet, but I imagine they'll get some cool moniker just by dint of being the last babies born before the nuclear apocalypse. The apocryphal generation seems to fit in a few different ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:There's no official standard for naming generations, and it's very common for a cohort of births to have multiple generation nicknames - I was Gen Y as a kid, then The Pepsi Generation, and now I'm a millennial, even though most people complaining about millennials are picturing kids in their early twenties, or even teens/tweens, who technically aren't millennials. Their generation hasn't been named yet, but I imagine they'll get some cool moniker just by dint of being the last babies born before the nuclear apocalypse. yeah, and the definitions get fuzzy for people on the border. i'm an old enough millennial that some try to describe us as the "oregon trail generation", and i personally like to set a rule of thumb where if you had social media in public school (or access to non-dialup internet before puberty) then you're an "old millennial" who doesn't quite share the same cultural milestones as the rest of the group and anyone who is complaining about millenials still in public school is just crying about youths, even by the most generous definitions all millenials are in their twenties or greater by now
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:It's still true though. The Baby Boom was from the end of WWII to the invention of the pill. It's an unusually large generation, but "Boomer" is still the correct term for anyone born from 1946 to 1964. And if you think for a minute it's obvious that no one born in the Sixties could be a hippie. Hippies were in their twenties when they were hippie-ing around. People born in the 60s had their formative years in the 70s and 80s - they were Yuppies. "Phygitals" (portmanteau of "physical" and "digital") is a new one I just heard today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Noctone posted:"Phygitals" (portmanteau of "physical" and "digital") is a new one I just heard today. Wow, I hate that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
people posted:millenial housing People want to live where the jobs are. And the places with lots of good jobs are expensive, even in the suburbs. The days where generic small-town America was a feasible place to build a life have rapidly vanished, along with the manufacturing & basic resource harvesting/processing jobs that kept it afloat. For the full picture, combine that housing pressure with the fact that nobody wants to build basic cheap housing stock. Developers want to build a bunch of luxury rentals so they can charge top dollar for them, and they'd rather build neighborhoods of pricy McMansions than smaller, cheaper homes. Minimum lot sizes and other anti-density zoning regulations also make it harder to build cheap housing stock. At this point the only cheap housing left in thriving areas is older stuff that hasn't been renovated into expensive housing(and that isn't in a hot property market where people will pay insane amounts just for the land). In other words, boner confessor posted:the thing about millenial housing is that we're not satisfied with cheap tract housing
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
haifisch we probably agree on the arguments we're making here butHaifisch posted:We absolutely would buy cheap tract housing if it existed near our jobs. As it stands, the 'cheap' areas are generally areas with no jobs, so you're not going to move there if you care about your economic future. i can read this two ways, "i'm not satsified with a 1h+ rush hour commute to get to my exurban 3/2" which i totally agree with "there are only a few cities worth living in (NYC/LA/SF/Seattle/Portland) and the housing markets are totally tanked" which i disagree with in that jobs and cheapish housing exist in most major american metros, but there's a heavy focus on the more unaffordable cities as being the only cities worth living in Haifisch posted:For the full picture, combine that housing pressure with the fact that nobody wants to build basic cheap housing stock. Developers want to build a bunch of luxury rentals so they can charge top dollar for them, and they'd rather build neighborhoods of pricy McMansions than smaller, cheaper homes. Minimum lot sizes and other anti-density zoning regulations also make it harder to build cheap housing stock. At this point the only cheap housing left in thriving areas is older stuff that hasn't been renovated into expensive housing(and that isn't in a hot property market where people will pay insane amounts just for the land). new, cheap housing exists - out in the burbs where people don't want to live. nobody's building new, affordable, multifamily dwellings except for banging out cheap townhomes. new housing starts in cities are definitely, at the cheapest, luxury apartments and condos
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:"there are only a few cities worth living in (NYC/LA/SF/Seattle/Portland) and the housing markets are totally tanked" which i disagree with in that jobs and cheapish housing exist in most major american metros, but there's a heavy focus on the more unaffordable cities as being the only cities worth living in Nah, gently caress that mindset. I'm in St. Pete, FL and it's a pretty nice blue area, with craft bars and hipster hangouts and all the signifiers of "worth living in" for Millennials. There's nice enough cities all over the place, it doesn't just have to be LA/SF/NYC. E: VVV Right, I'm saying those people are dumb. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Aug 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Nah, gently caress that mindset. I'm in St. Pete, FL and it's a pretty nice blue area, with craft bars and hipster hangouts and all the signifiers of "worth living in" for Millennials. There's nice enough cities all over the place, it doesn't just have to be LA/SF/NYC. I think his point is that many many other people do not agree with you, not that LA/SF/NYC are in fact the only places worth living.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
i think we're all in agreement that many american cities are worth living in or around
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i think we're all in agreement that many american cities are worth living in or around I'd only put it at around twenty, give or take.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i think we're all in agreement that many american cities are worth living in or around Yes but not [city that many people like to live in] because of [contrarian reason]
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:
Not very rapidly. They started dying easily around 1900-1910 and were just barely rejuvenated by war production contracts (IF they were lucky enough to have a mine still worth working or a factory still somewhat useful) in WWII and to a limited extent Korea. It's been more than 50 years since they were anything but dying, most much longer. Most of the "small towns" that were viable past that point or became so? They are simply suburbs or maybe exurbs now. Local employment is often just as failed as ever for the more outer ones, but there's plenty of people living there and commuting into the inner suburbs or even the city works OK to sustain the local shopping center.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:Yea, Dunkin' Donuts whole appeals is being a cheaper, quicker, coffee place than Starbucks. As long as they don't screw up those two things, they should be good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:he's technically not wrong, neither are you, you're just arguing different definitions of poor gently caress's sake. The federal poverty line for a family of 3 is $20,420. A median household income at less than double the poverty line for a generation that is at the 'getting married and having a first kid' age is loving terrible. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Aug 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:gently caress's sake. What do those numbers look like for 1981 catching the earliest bits of gen x? 1973 when catching the midstream of boomers? 1959 for when a ton of boomers were still kids, or hell 1948 when a ton weren't born yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What do those numbers look like for 1981 catching the earliest bits of gen x? 1973 when catching the midstream of boomers? 1959 for when a ton of boomers were still kids, or hell 1948 when a ton weren't born yet? Do you own work, fishmech. Is your Google hand broken? boner confessor posted:i'm not presuming anything here, i'm just pointing out that we're not so much regressing as returning to the mean. less that society is being dismantled vs. the boomers won a chronological lottery and squandered it instead of leaving an inheritance for future generations. the relative wealth of the mid 20th century could have gone towards building a better society but it was instead wasted on conspicuous consumption and welp We're not 'returning to a mean' in any sense other than the wealth distribution trending back towards 1920's levels of absurd disparity as the capitalist class finds more efficient ways of getting value from the working class without increasing wages in return, be it via automation or just the efficiency gains that modern technology allows. The GDP has more that doubled in the last 25 years, and shows no signs of slowing its gain. Hell, the US GDP per capita as of 2016 was $57k. Here's a nice chart for you, in constant Y2K dollars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Nah, gently caress that mindset. I'm in St. Pete, FL and it's a pretty nice blue area, with craft bars and hipster hangouts and all the signifiers of "worth living in" for Millennials. There's nice enough cities all over the place, it doesn't just have to be LA/SF/NYC. On the flip side of the coin, I'm really getting kind of tired of people telling me to move away from my job and my entire family just because the Seattle area is "trendy". Washington State also has legal weed, mail-in voting, high minimum wages, accepted the Medicare funding and has solid protections against being fired for being LBGT. I certainly don't need all of that, but those close to me certainly do. I've never been to St. Pete and I take your word that it's underrated, but those sorts of policies and protections (combined with growing up here) really make living on the west coast more than just being a cool kid or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:On the flip side of the coin, I'm really getting kind of tired of people telling me to move away from my job and my entire family just because the Seattle area is "trendy". Who are these people telling you to move because a place is too trendy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 10:19
|
|
|
the old ceremony posted:i am debating and discussing the retail collapse of 2017, which has led me to my current sorry situation, which is that i live behind a meth lab, wear nothing but a hooded dressing gown 24/7 and eat only eggs. i have a university debt and the neighbourhood children are afraid of me. in my free time i go to a nearby reserve and build large complex arrangements of logs and branches around the nascent wattle trees Pink Flamingos 2 scriptwriter found.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
Noctone posted:"Phygitals" (portmanteau of "physical" and "digital") is a new one I just heard today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 11:18
|
|