Millennials the new poor in the USA, while seniors are the new rich - Is there any hope for those 18-34? (register, system)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That rushing sound must be the point going over your head.
The couple who bought their house in 1978 (back in the days of double-digit everything) did so on two incomes. One making twice the minimum wage. The other making minimum wage. They could buy a house with that kind of income back during the horrible Boomer recession days.
Take those same numbers and plug them into 2015 -- what does $14.50 per hour and $7.25 per hour buy the couple starting out? Bupkis, that's what. What kind of schools do they have to choose from without taking on massive amounts of debt? People COULD make a life for themselves even with what amounts to low wages -- and this is during those horrible double-digit everything times that Boomers on this thread whine incessantly about.
People who are in the same position today are on welfare. That's the economic reality.
I'm not going to repost the same information that apparently has already rushed over your head (hear that sound?). I've already shown that the cost of living coupled with inflation hasn't really changed all that much over the past couple of generations. What HAS changed the most is peoples' expectations.
There are a lot of people making that little. Here is some census data from back home in Hawkins County, TN. You could be a highly educated scientist in Hawkins County and be only making $20-$30k, because those are the only jobs available.
That's not saying someone with a good background should settle for those low incomes, but many do and choose to remain near their families and friends.
Well, that's their choice then but that's just it - their CHOICE. If I can't make a decent living where I live, I'm moving to where the jobs are.
Our unemployment rate nationwide has dropped considerably and our median household income is going up. Meanwhile, interest rates are at rock bottom and housing prices still haven't rebounded so there are some great mortgage deals to be had out there, especially compared with what college grads were dealing with on that front in the 1980s. YIKES!
I bought my first house (1300 square feet by the way) in 1993 and was THRILLED to get a 6.5 percent interest rate. These days the blood would drain from most anyone's face at that prospect - both the square footage AND the interest rate.
Oh - and in those days, you generally had to put down 20 percent to buy a house, which is much more financially sound than "zero down" or "five percent down." If you have to scrape together every penny to pay the closing costs, that's a red flag - you probably shouldn't be buying a house.
I've answered this before but I'll answer it again. Less than five percent of Americans working today make minimum wage, and most of those are part time workers.
If I made $14.50 an hour, I wouldn't be considering buying a home. That's only about $30,000 a year. I don't know many adults over 35 who are making such a low amount, though I'm sure they're out there. But using your hypothetical situation, the couple in question would only be making $45k a year, well below the median income of $54k in the US. However, the median income for household's in which the wage earner(s) have a bachelor's degree is nearly $70k, so if these two people have degrees and are only making $30k a year, I'd say they probably haven't made the best decisions when it comes to education and career. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ion_Income.jpg
I know a young unwed mother who has done just that. I met her while she was a convenience store clerk. She was working two jobs and bought a house for herself and her son. It's a modest 1980s 2 br 900 sf on a nice lot in a nice neighborhood, and the 0 down mortgage payment is $600, less than she was paying in rent. Then she quit her main job because her boss gave her a ride home and raped her. For a while she worked 3 jobs, until she got into sales. Now she just works 1 job. She's not wealthy, but she pays the bills. She never went to college. It's not impossible, but it took her a lot of work and many hours of house shopping and negotiations to swing the deal. I guess she's a little old for this thread - she turns 30 this year, but she was 23 with a small child when she bought the house. Her parents' basement is 3000 miles away and they are no help.
So we're back to "I got mine on the cheap. You can pound sand. I paid for mine working part-time jobs. You can go to Afghanistan and get shot at for yours."
Why not plug your personal "just starting out" numbers into 2015 and see how it works? For instance, the sorts of jobs I worked to pay for school pay $9/hr today. (They paid about 25% more than minimum wage back then as well.) That isn't going to pay for the above-mentioned degree from Duke. That isn't even going to pay for two years of community college and then two years at Duke. I'll concede that those kind of jobs would never pay for a school like Duke -- not even in the 1960s. But once upon a time they would easily pay for a school like UNH, which I have rolled out the numbers for several times.
I think it's bad enough that we have placed most four-year schools out of reach without taking on debt. No need to cheer about it, too.
The Greatest Generation got to go fight WWII. The silents got to go fight in Korea. The Boomers got shipped off to Viet Nam. The Xers had it a little easier with nothing but Somalia, the Balkans and Desert Storm. The military industrial complex is a huge sector of the US economy and always hiring. If you can't get the job you want, take the job you can get.
As has been pointed out, graduating from Duke is only relevant to other Duke graduates. The rest of the world doesn't care. Just go to State U and major in something useful.
Well, that's their choice then but that's just it - their CHOICE. If I can't make a decent living where I live, I'm moving to where the jobs are.
Our unemployment rate nationwide has dropped considerably and our median household income is going up. Meanwhile, interest rates are at rock bottom and housing prices still haven't rebounded so there are some great mortgage deals to be had out there, especially compared with what college grads were dealing with on that front in the 1980s. YIKES!
I bought my first house (1300 square feet by the way) in 1993 and was THRILLED to get a 6.5 percent interest rate. These days the blood would drain from most anyone's face at that prospect - both the square footage AND the interest rate.
Oh - and in those days, you generally had to put down 20 percent to buy a house, which is much more financially sound than "zero down" or "five percent down." If you have to scrape together every penny to pay the closing costs, that's a red flag - you probably shouldn't be buying a house.
All of that is local. There are some areas that are clearly prospering. Others are still ashambles and will be for the foreseeable future.
Yes, people ought to go where the work is, but it's not always that easy.
All of that is local. There are some areas that are clearly prospering. Others are still ashambles and will be for the foreseeable future.
Yes, people ought to go where the work is, but it's not always that easy.
The thing I don't like about this statement is that it implies that it is either easy to move and you move or it is not easy to move and you don't move. There is a large group of people that don't find it easy to move, but understand it is necessary.
I know a young unwed mother who has done just that. I met her while she was a convenience store clerk. She was working two jobs and bought a house for herself and her son. It's a modest 1980s 2 br 900 sf on a nice lot in a nice neighborhood, and the 0 down mortgage payment is $600, less than she was paying in rent. Then she quit her main job because her boss gave her a ride home and raped her. For a while she worked 3 jobs, until she got into sales. Now she just works 1 job. She's not wealthy, but she pays the bills. She never went to college. It's not impossible, but it took her a lot of work and many hours of house shopping and negotiations to swing the deal. I guess she's a little old for this thread - she turns 30 this year, but she was 23 with a small child when she bought the house. Her parents' basement is 3000 miles away and they are no help.
It can make sense in some cases (especially when the payment is more than rent) but one big drawback is that anything that breaks is your responsibility - and many home repairs are expensive. If you can barely make the payments you probably shouldn't be buying a house. Life happens.
The Greatest Generation got to go fight WWII. The silents got to go fight in Korea. The Boomers got shipped off to Viet Nam. The Xers had it a little easier with nothing but Somalia, the Balkans and Desert Storm. The military industrial complex is a huge sector of the US economy and always hiring. If you can't get the job you want, take the job you can get.
As has been pointed out, graduating from Duke is only relevant to other Duke graduates. The rest of the world doesn't care. Just go to State U and major in something useful.
Just to clarify - Boomers got Vietnam AND Desert Storm in many cases.
All of that is local. There are some areas that are clearly prospering. Others are still ashambles and will be for the foreseeable future.
Yes, people ought to go where the work is, but it's not always that easy.
Life isn't easy for most people. Baby Boomers included. Life is generally a pretty challenging undertaking.
And "all that is local" isn't even true. Interest rates were higher in all regions during the 1980s and 1990s. The median home was 1000 square feet smaller than it is today in the 1960s through the 1980s. Unemployment across the nation is lower than it was during ANY recession we've had. Of course I'm speaking generally because all of us can pull exceptions to every rule out - those exceptions are interesting but they don't much, other than that individual success or failure can happen in any economic environment.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,731 posts, read 81,641,337 times
Reputation: 58100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emigrations
All of that is local. There are some areas that are clearly prospering. Others are still ashambles and will be for the foreseeable future.
Yes, people ought to go where the work is, but it's not always that easy.
Exactly, here we have rebounded and are now above the 2005-2006 peak home prices. Moving here is not advisable without a good job lined up due to the similarly high rent. The good jobs are here, but so are the high prices. One feeds the other as the demand drives the prices up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
