Comment by SilverElfin

Comment by SilverElfin 2 days ago

22 replies

View on Hacker News

> 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 2 days ago

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.

Reply View 16 replies
  • aianus 2 days ago

    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.

    Reply View 0 replies
  • SilverElfin 2 days ago

    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.

    Reply View 14 replies
    • johnnyanmac 2 days ago

      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.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • bluGill 2 days ago

        401k and IRAs is where millennials should have their stocks and those have done very well over the years. There is little point in stocks elsewhere (unless you are very rich) since stocks are for long term investments and those two cover the retirement needs of nearly everyone (except the very rich), and there are few other savings needs people might have that stocks qualify for.

        Remember you won't live forever (at least not to current medical knowledge, you can bet otherwise if you want), and you can't take it with you (according to most religions). Thus once you have retirement covered and emergency savings you should be spending everything you earn. You should have enough money left at the end of the month to afford the things you buy at the end of the month, but there is no point in any more, enjoy life with what you earn. (donating to charity counts as enjoying life!)

        Reply View 0 replies
    • actionfromafar 2 days ago

      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...

      Reply View 9 replies
      • shubb 2 days ago

        Net worth is a funny metric.

        Joe has a 300k house with 100k equity and 200k mortgage. He has 100k in stocks in a 401k. Net worth negative 100k.

        Pete has $300 in his cheques account, and isn't eligible for loans or mortgage. Net worth positive $300

        Obviously Joe is richer than Pete though.

        Reply View 8 replies
    • aianus 2 days ago

      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?

      Reply View 0 replies
    • [removed] 2 days ago
      [deleted]
      Reply View 0 replies
aydyn 2 days ago

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.

Reply View 1 reply
  • bluGill 2 days ago

    People complain. Boomers conplained too back in the day - still do, but about different things.

    Reply View 0 replies
orwin 2 days ago

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.

Reply View 1 reply
  • taneq 2 days ago

    I feel like your edited-in point is glossed over FAR too often. We talk about inflation like it’s some objective measure when it’s arbitrary as f@$k and mostly only reflects what the current arbiters of inflation want it to reflect.

    A great recent example was the Australian decision to add capital gains on a primary residence as a profit (ie. negative expense) when calculating inflation. All of a sudden inflation was very reasonable despite the fact that established homeowners and their families were choosing between groceries and mortgage payments… but in terms of their net worth, YAY! They’re getting ahead!

    Reply View 0 replies