this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
348 points (100.0% liked)

News

29568 readers
3739 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Oh I thought it was because they like Trump, are Russian bots, and tankies. At least if people here are to be believed.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

America fails it's citizens in myriad ways. I very openly talk about that. I also know for a fact that all the shit you mentioned is absolutely all over Internet social spaces. It's incredibly obvious.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago

What I see people here talking about most often is income inequality. I'm not sure why you didn't bring that up.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (13 children)

GLYY18qWwAAb7pj

Each successive generation has a higher income even accounting for inflation

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The study that graph is from literally says that millenial growth has stalled compared to baby boomer and silent generations:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf

We confirm that there has been a slowdown in intergenerational progress, except for Millennials who saw their incomes grow slightly faster than Generation X but still more slowly than Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation. Intergenerational progress has remained positive for all generations.

First, we find that the higher household incomes of Millennials relative to Generation X, through their 20s, is a result of dependence on their parents rather than a rise in their own market incomes.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do they calculate your household income when you can't afford a household?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I think you're being glib, but my assumption is they are using household in the IRS sense, I e. A household consists of any one taxpayer and whoever they can claim as dependents.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That chart lacks context. The cost of living has drastically increased with each generation as well, far outpacing the increase in wages.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The cost of living is tracked by inflation, that's what inflation is

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)

It looks like there's nothing I can say to make you see, but even accounting for inflation, the cost of living has been outpacing wages for decades! That's why the average US worker in the 1950s could support a home with their wages alone, but today, two people working full-time jobs still can't afford a home.

That's because the cost of living has been outpacing wages.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Meaningless chart.

It doesn’t account for things like the median home price in 1950 being ~$7000 vs over $400,000 today. The chart doesn’t show a peak earning increase of 10x between the Silent Generation vs GenX, which seems to have done the best, albeit only briefly. Adjusting the average home price for CPI makes a ‘50s $7k home less than $100k today.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Home ownership right now is still pretty high

Home_Ownership_rate

Just because it was cheaper doesn't mean people could afford them

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

None of your charts say anything for first time home buyers. Total home ownership percentage is meaningless when you’re also trying to assert what you are about younger generations. My wage isn’t made any more livable because my grandparents bought a house in the 60s.

When you focus so hard on limited statistics your conclusions are similarly limited. Consider this: in 2022 the percentage of college educated people in the US actually went down from previous years. That’s never happened before because college has never been as unattainable as it is now. Unemployment rates are the lowest they’ve been in decades, but places like restaurants are being forced to close because they can’t fill low paying positions. Either young people are bound and determined to die penniless and uneducated, or there’s some problems you’re conveniently ignoring.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Here's the source for that chart. And the paper for that chart.

The chart is for household income. With each generation, there's an increase in the percentage of the generation living at home. This is noted in the paper, but not in The Economist article. We'll see if Gen Z makes the switch like Millennials were during their 30s.

A couple of asides. The Economist graph isn't very easily matched with one from the paper. There are several graphs that share similar contours, but The Economist has changed the aspect ratio enough that it's hard to identify with visual inspection. Most curious, though, is The Economist's choice of starting the x-axis at 15 years old. All the graphs in the paper start at 20myesrs old.

The conclusion in The Economist piece is as follows:

What does this wealth mean? It can seem as if millennials grew up thinking a job was a privilege, and acted accordingly. They are deferential to bosses and eager to please. Zoomers, by contrast, have grown up believing that a job is basically a right, meaning they have a different attitude to work. Last year Gen Z-ers boasted about “quiet quitting”, where they put in just enough effort not to be fired. Others talk of “bare minimum Monday”. The “girlboss” archetype, who seeks to wrestle corporate control away from domineering men, appeals to millennial women. Gen Z ones are more likely to discuss the idea of being “snail girls”, who take things slowly and prioritise self-care.

It is clear that The Economist has an agenda of dividing Millennials and Gen Z. The paper makes no claims about Gen Z and their economic outlook. The data is simply not there. Rather, The Economist is recapitulating tired themes of "the youth these days" and "kids don't want to work".

People work when they have something to work towards, with and for people they care about. People work hard because it fills us with meaning purpose. When we are young, we do and should be creating relationships and learning about ourselves, the world, who we wish to be in the world, and who we wish to journey with.

I forever will call bullshit on the anti-youth themes of our culture. It dimishes it and serves only the most well established and crumudgenly amongst us. Articles like these have all too obvious subtext of "shut up, work hard, and grow up".

Fuck that noise.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah but it doesn't tell the whole truth, cost of living has been rising steadily as well.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Cost of living is inflation, which this chart takes into account

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Repeat same talking point.

The things you say are useless, especially since these are adjusted by household size. Do one that isn't.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Sure, but inflation doesn't factor in price hikes, for instance medical insurance, drug prices, house prices, rent, collage tuition or new expenditures that didn't exist 20 years ago. These don't follow the curve of inflation, they are artificialy inflated which is shown in increased profit margins.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you are saying that Millenials at their peak now are making as much as Boomers did 20 years ago when houses were about a quarter of the price, and somehow your conclusion is that Millenials are doing great? Or let's look at age vs age: at age 40 a Millenial makes twice as much as a Boomer did at that age, but a Boomer at age 40 could buy a new house in a nice suburb for under $100k when that exact same house is over $300k now.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The chart is indexed for inflation. Housing went up faster, but things like fuel are not so expensive comparatively

You're cherry picking things that went up faster

By the way, home ownership rate:

Home_Ownership_rate

It's not lower now

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The CPI used for that doesn't distinguish between generations so the lower house prices from people who got their houses in the 1990s are going to be mixed with the higher house prices of those trying to get their houses now with the former dilluting the latter.

Further the inflation index doesn't reflect a lowering utility value of houses: if dwellings further and furthe taway from the places of work are built and occupied because people are been pushed further out by higher prices, so the utility of the houeses is lowet, that is not reflected in the CPI (at most it makes it a bit lower than it should be since the expanding pool of lower utility houses pulls the average price down a bit).

Further, as others pointed out, younger people are staying in their parents for longer and longer AND delaying childbirth, so their available income is higher because they're not spending any money in housing or children.

The numbers not only do not reflect a better life, they're not even comparable in their own merits across generations because the personal inflation of somebody looking for a place to live now is totally different from the one of those who have been living in a house they bought 30 years ago.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (10 children)

And people can’t afford houses, college, healthcare, etc. because...? Like cool chart, but my generation will literally never be as financially stable as those who came before. I guess it’s fun to pretend we’re better off than we are though.

Imagine paying for college with your income rather than loans.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I wonder what happens to this chart if you remove the top 1% from the calculations. "Median" basically means halfway between the top and bottom... The massive and increasing wealth gap means this graph is basically worthless.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Shhhh that completely undermines their point.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yet still workings are still making less than they should.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay now do one that shows how much is available after paying for things like rent, food, car, etc.

Meaningless chart

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay, now why hasn't the minimum wage been raised in literal decades?

Honestly it just seems like you're being obtuse

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's the federal minimum wage, cities have certainly raised their own minimum wages

That's why only like 1% of workers make the federal minimum wage

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Nice cherry picking, you got any other fallacies to throw in there?

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Sure Bud, nice meaningless chart.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (13 children)

In 1960, minimum wage was $1.00/hour and the price of the average US home was $11,000.00

How many minimum wage workers are out there right now looking to buy a new home?

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Missing some really important variables, there (inflation, buying power, etc)… while using metrics that present an a deliberately inaccurate picture (median rather than average, and not adjusted for outliers).

Basically, this chart is useless, deceptive propaganda.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

One can simultaneously not like Trump, the US/NATO establishment, the CCP, Putin, Tankies, Republicans™, and Democrats™.

None of these cults and demagogues are friends to ordinary people.