The takeaway from this is that if generational cohorts come to resemble each other over time, then gosh, maybe they were always terrible, arbitrary, misleading distinctions in the first place.
If a resource is practically unlimited (say air), then money doesn't play a role.
Money is a way to assign priority to the acquisition of a resource, similarly to the role of a queue. If a generation is wealthier or not compared to others, it only speaks about how we share resources in society, assuming the wealth is being consumed.
For a society to be richer overall, it doesn't need more money. It needs more resources.
Well said. Wealth isn't the $ amount but what it can afford.
IMO every generation is wealthier even if it has the same $ share, because quality of commodities get better over time with technology on average.
It's not always true. Technology is only valuable if it can increase abundance.
Healthcare, education and house prices seem to be doing the opposite. Ironically those are the core things that have heavy caps on supply and supply is artificially chocked, not letting the free market optimize for prices.
Hmmm… this does not jive with personal experience. Almost everyone I know in my boomer parents generation bought large homes with land on a single income and no college degree, and still have them… which they sit in alone, with entire floors of empty bedrooms they never enter. Most of my millennial friends have dual graduate degree dual six figure incomes but pretty much have to rent because a mortgage on a small single family home would not leave enough money for childcare so they could keep working. They technically could buy but they’d be stretched so thin it would be really hard, so they don’t.
For example, take home pay from two 100k salaries is about $11,850/mo total. A mortgage, taxes, and insurance on a 1.1 M home (a small 2 bedroom that needs work here in the Bay Area) could be $8k/mo, not considering upkeep costs. Childcare for two children would be ~3k/mo, already bringing it even, without food, cars, etc.
Sure, where homes are cheaper but salaries are more than proportionally lower, and the chances of a professional couple finding jobs in the same city are low. Which is why people move here…
Do the majority of people moving to the SF Bay have a two-body problem? I would have expected it overwhelmingly attracted the personally unattached who obtain long-term attachments there.
I was talking just about the people trying to buy single family homes- which probably have kids and a two body problem. I sure wouldn't bother even thinking about buying a house in the bay if I didn't have a family.
you're on an english language forum based in California hosted by a San Fran tech incubator. if you don't want to hear about US issues you're in the wrong place.
The chart showing home ownership rate is broken down by "generation" but each cohort becomes skewed towards older members of that group as we move towards the present. If you look at boomers and millennials at age 25 that's a fair comparison. But if you compare boomers and millennials at age 40, you're now comparing all people born 1946 to 1964 (18 year range) against just the millennials born 1981 to 1984 (3 year range). This group of older millennials were in their late 20s when house prices tanked after the financial crisis and in their mid 30s by the time home prices started rising dramatically in 2020. This selection bias means if there is an overall downward trend in home ownership, the boomer line will stay fixed but the millennial line for ages 28 to 43 will move down next time the data is analyzed. This is almost certain to happen.
The second bit of fudging that's going on is that this chart is looking at home ownership. But a home is not a house. Millennials and Gen Z are more likely to buy an apartment than previous generations. It's not fair to say that a boomer buying a free standing house is equivalent to a millennial buying a two-bedroom apartment. The quality of life and the opportunity for capital gains are much lower.
This copmment is NOT about the "free market" mythology 8-)
The big takeaway: the kidult generation is finally understanding that they too will continue to age. Not as an insight, just admitting to what's already happened.
This is also not a new phenomenon. The "boomers" were of course the "don't trust anyone over 30" generation. (Talkin' 'bout my gen.. gen.. generation)
Children always perceive themselves as somehow a separate species from the previous generation. Then they grow into it.
Another glaring example is the Sunrise Movement (which I wholeheartedly support!). Greta and crew where touting the "grownups ruined everything" mantra. Now they're all adults (at least legally).
Most everyone gets there, and the alternative is grim.
Hold your horses there, these are sweeping claims that seems like the author boiled it down to
“Well millennials bought cheap houses before 2020, so they got cheap houses too, like their parents”
Just because folks got a cheap rate on houses doesn’t mean they can afford the risk over a lifetime.
Boomers could work relatively simple jobs and pay off a house. Right now a house is a much much much larger liability than it has ever been
One’s mortgage payment in even a moderate cost of living area can quickly go from manageable to difficult or impossible if something suddenly curbs their earning potential, and barring a lucky break that pays the mortgage off, this possibility will loom large for decades with the chances of things going wrong increasing with each passing year as health declines.
Decades ago when housing prices and pay were better aligned, there was a much better chance of being able to scrape by if it came down to that, plus it was easier to pay the house off in a reasonable amount of time giving that less of a chance to occur.
Point in case, where I live a pretty typical pre-interest-spike house payment is twice the gross income of someone working a full time minimum wage job which doesn’t cover food, utilities, clothes, etc. Not only does this put ownership out of reach for a lot of people, but makes it possible to quickly turn precarious for even many of those who can afford it.
And this just gets worse for more expensive areas where the disparity is much more extreme like in the SF Bay Area.
> Right now a house is a much much much larger liability than it has ever been
> how so?
* far less job stability -- you don't get a gig for life, or at least 20 years like Grandpa did, and Dad could at least ride the boom and growth cycles of the 90s and 2000s
* housing costs a lot more, and even if you can afford it you're far more apt to be fired, which makes it risky to stick your neck out
* no safety nets, and brutal conditions in the job market mean if you catch an axe then you're out of luck -- that house is now a big ole liability
> Right now a house is a much much much larger liability than it has ever been
I was curious why you believed that. Other commenters have helped me understand why you believe that's the case. My opinion is that we're in the middle of a housing shortage in many places. Interest rates are up, but people are still buying houses, so the liability, for places where people are still buying houses isn't three "much"es level of liability in my mind (and my area). If it becomes a millstone around your neck, sell the house. Which is easier said than done, but that's where I'm coming from.
Yet another attempt at the multi-decade long gaslighting campaign targeting millennials with skewed, cherrypicked data with dubious, sweeping conclusions - just as it always has been, just as it always will be.
First off, this data uses a generational start date of 1979. I've never, ever seen a millennial range defined here, but sure, let's go with that. Half or more millennials are home owners? Bullshit. Show me where that data is coming from. Let's assume it's true though, I'd surmise most of these numbers are from boomer generations dying off and leaving property/inheritance to their children. Does that really say all that much?
As far as "biggest wealth generation jump since 2016" like yea no shit, I'd guess you could take a slice of years from any generation that's exiting young adulthood into their careers and see a similar relative jump. This is a red flag example because it doesn't measure against similar ranges in other generations early career years. Your wealth doesn't change much as a percentage of your total wealth as you get older and richer - for reasons that shouldn't need a lot of explaining.
In other words, I have $1 to my name and it goes to $3 within 8 years. a boomer has $100 and it goes to $110 in 8 years. Wow, these millennials are complaining about a THREE HUNDRED PERCENT increase to their wealth compared to us?
“Redfin data shows millennials are more or less on track with previous generations”
“more or less” is doing some heavy lifting. The chart referenced shows a pretty dramatic discontinuity between Millennials and Gen X / Boomers from age 25 to 35 w.r.t homeownership rate.
The chart in the article shows 25% homeownership rate for Gen Z 19 year olds. So if you meet a current 19 year old there is a 1/4 chance they own a house? It’s total nonsense, Redfin has fabricated this data. The median age for first time mortgages is 35.
Did they count houses owned by 19 year olds rather than 19 year olds who own houses? Is this some kind of tax dodge where you “gift” a home to a child?
When I was in college I had several friends who “owned” their homes because their parents bought it for them. All the children in the family used those homes in school, then they were sold at a profit.
I suppose the "OK, Boomer" will now become "OK, Millennial".
Of course this was going to happen, it's what always happens, generation after generation. It's called 'The Cycle of Life'. We've been doing it for several million years.
Yeah, I mean obviously GenX followed a similar track to Boomers and now Millennials are next in the generation line. Except this time, Boomers are in their 80's and GenX are in their 50s so when the Boomer grandparents are dying they're probably leaving inheritance to their millennial grandchildren who need it more than their grown-up GenX children.
