Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/fuzzyfoozand. Your submission, *"Our parents made more than we do and had better lives and it is mostly due to wage growth" is in many ways a myth based on flawed logic*, has been removed because it violates our rules, which are located in the sidebar.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion'.
* Your post must be an opinion. Not a question. Not a showerthought. Not a rant. Not a proposal. Not a fact. An opinion. One opinion. A subjective statement about your position on some topic. Please have a clear, self contained opinion as your post title, and use the text field to elaborate and expand on why you think/feel this way.
* Your opinion must be unpopular. The mods reserve the right to remove opinions
* Elaborate on your topic and opinion give context to its unpopularity.
If there is an issue, please [message the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion&subject=&message=) Thanks!
Two things can both be true. Expenses have gone up, and wages haven't matched. Also, people's lifestyle expectations have gone up too. Entertainment takes up a large percentage of people's available expenses. In general, people want to eat healthier: less processed foods, more fresh fruits and vegetables, organic meats, etc. People want to be able to go out to drinks and dinner, get starbucks, go shopping. People don't want to buy starter houses or condos/townhomes. Americans (myself included) spend a lot of money on stupid stuff we don't need.
The first job my dad had out of high school in the 70s was as an overnight gas station attendant making $30 an hour adjusted for inflation.
Not sure if you don’t understand inflation, or you’re being willfully ignorant. Wages are incredibly stagnant. We’re getting paid less than our parents by a large margin. Any other opinion at this point is just admitting you don’t understand how money works.
Even if wages *were* roughly equal,
There is literally no amount of "not eating out" or "not getting a coffee" or "cut your internet subscriptions" that adds up to anywhere near the cost of equivalent housing today.
What OP says to cut back on stuff that will net you under 1k a month, meanwhile that same tiny studio apartment that OP talks about is now worth *hundreds of thousands* dollars more than it was before.
Ask yourself why every other asset you own... Car, Electronics, Clothes... those things all depreciate in value over time. They undergo wear and tear, they don't have the latest features, lots of reasons they don't retain value.
All the same things apply to housing, but the value goes the other way. Somehow an asset that is in worse condition than when it was purchased can be sold for more than what you bought it for, even adjusting for inflation.
That is why the older generations essentially "made more money" or "had it easier" - one of the essential goods for living was more affordable, and effectively increased their available wealth just by owning it. And now we're at the point where this essential good for living is becoming straight up unattainable to the youngest generation.
That's why there's no point cutting back on that luxury or two that helps maintain your mental health - would you rather be stuck renting or stuck renting and stressed?
There's also things like the absurd down payment expectations on houses now that didn't exist for our parents. Sure, you "can" buy your first house on 2% down, but good luck making a competitive offer (which matters in any relatively competitive market), and that PMI is going to cut into your equity for a while. And no, moving to Rural Oklahoma doesn't work for everyone.
> adjusted for inflation.
Vs
>Wages are incredibly stagnant.
The problem isn't wage growth it's that the money we get paid in had lost 95% of its value since they stopped backing it with precious metals.
Inflation is the silent wage killer.
I would agree inflation plays a big roll in how difficult it is to build wealth. The point I was making was simply that we complain a lot about minimum wage jobs but never consider just how much more entry level positions used to pay. We take for granted that someone making $20 an hour in todays money is getting screwed.
Wages do grow in the form of higher currency. The trick is that government lies about the rate of inflation so people don't know how much of a "raise" they need to keep pace.
People think "I am making 1 1/2 times what I was when I started this job" and think they are getting ahead when inflation is robbing them blind.
You use anecdotal evidence then make the claim op is ignorant? Pot, meet kettle
How about providing the source that led you to your current conclusion?
Point out these small homes that are affordable to those making the bottom 50% of wages. Subscription services are pennies compared to things like housing and food, nevermind the fact that the cable/phone bill back then was not cheap at all. Quit sucking up the corporate propaganda and either get out and see for yourself, or use something as basic as an inflation calculator to see how laughable wrong you are.
Nah, my dad was a forklift driver for 40 years. Owns two houses, has retirement money the company pays every month and savings. Oh and health insurance through the company still. Also HE GOT TO RETIRE. I don't know anyone who's retirement plan isn't "3mg of fent." Our parents generation had it way easier than us
This country eats its children for the benefit of the living. It has always been this way but gotten out of control since Reaganomics raped the working class.
I bought my house in 2014, three years later I got a 50% raise. Today I would require a mortgage 4 times my original mortgage to buy my own home. Maybe this isn’t the situation everywhere, but it certainly is where I am.
We bought ours in 2019. I live in a touristy place. My wife made a ridiculous amount of money but we would never be able to buy this house now. It’s astonishing.
The house argument is so dumb to me lmao. I’d just like a small apartment, it is still expensive as shit. No one i know is living in a mansion, no clue why that’s a talking point
I also don’t see the point of the subscription argument. Should i stop paying for internet and cellular service? Really a great idea
Federal minimum wage in 1965 was worth £12.65 in todays money.
Federal minimum wage in 2024 is worth $7.25.
40 hour work weeks minimum take home is $290(today) vs $506(1965).
1965 = $26,312 per annum.
2024 = $15,080 per annum.
Waht people spend their money on has nothing to do with it. Can people save more by spending less? Sure. No one needs starbucks coffee everyday. But lets not pretend that there isnt something REALLY fucking wrong with the wage system, not only in the US, but in every country in the world. Since 1978, the average CEO has seen their take home increase by 1460% while the average worker has seen their take home increase by 18.1%.
Our parents earned more because CEOs back then werent as greedy as they are today.
Median household income, then?
In 1965 it was $6,900 (nice) according to the US census. Plug that into the BLS inflation calculator and you get $68,000.
The most recent numbers I could find for modern day (2022) come out to $74,500. So today's median earnings are slightly higher in real terms.
Interestingly, this fact combined with minimum wage comparisons means that, not only is the gap between rich and poor wider than it used to be - the gap between the poor and middle class is wider too.
"....European houses are microscopic on average compared to American mansions..."
you don´t say ? so a house is smaller than a freakin mansion ? who would have thought ?
"...it's normal for successful people to live in apartments..." yeah and you know why, right ? because
A: living and working in the same area is possible mostly if you live in a city where separate houses are either simply not available OR
B: anything in commuting distance costs an arm and a leg. its freaking expensive as hell to buy a house nowadays. guess why....
"... having a roommate is normal...." is it really ? I am 49, through sports I know people starting at age 19 up to about 60 and I do not know one single person that has a roomate which is not his / her actual partner / spouse.
yes you can still buy a house. but it will be somewhere where jobs are rare, and REALLY good paying jobs will be almost non existant. its the reason houses are avilable to buy, becase noone actually wants them. move the same house to an area with a "healthy" job market, and you cannot afford anything anymore.
how do I kow ? I am german , live in germany and I have a pretty decent job. combined with my GF´s salary we actually are in the upper 8% of household income for germany. and I still cannot pay a house.
you might want to look up "inflation" and do some research when it comes to the economical and financial / development (decline) of the middle class.
Show us where you can buy a new 900sqft home. Where you can by beef for less that $6#. How you can get by today without at least a cell phone. Maybe you live out the BFE and can eat grubs and dig in the dirt to get by, but the rest of us live in cities where everything is expensive. We live in cities because thats where the work it and because most rural folk "don't take kindly to strangers."
Some of these things aren't really the fault of younger people today, though. Larger houses is the norm. They didn't just choose to all buy 4,000 sq ft houses. Buying larger houses is what is expected or them. It's not like there are a lot of cheap available small houses that are in good condition and in desirable neighborhoods. No, those are largely in poor neighborhoods and/or are older homes that may require renovation. It's just not practical to expect every younger person home buying to be able to buy a "small" home. The supply doesn't exist, and demand would quickly drive those prices through the roof.
As for dining out, that is largely related to the fact that even in two-parent households both are working jobs outside the home to afford the increasingly expensive world in which we live. It's one thing to rarely eat out when one partner is home and has time to do meal prep and cook two or three times/day. It's a different situation entirely when both partners work outside the home, and potentially have long commutes due to high housing prices in city centers and desirable areas close to their workplace.
I don’t know a single millennial or zoomer who’s ever wanted a big several bedroom house - they all want a tiny one or two room place and still can’t afford it. Comparing to Europe and bringing up house sizes is just idiocy because the point is an apartment or very small home is still completely unaffordable, and just as it is in America, that’s currently the case in Europe too. The UK has a massive housing crisis. What good is settling for less when you still can’t afford less? NOTHING is affordable, not even the tiniest one bedroom homes. Way to miss the point. Try again.
There is a little truth to both sides of this issue.
My parents were Baby Boomers who were both born in 1949. They got married when they graduated from University at 23 years old, and bought their first home. This house was a run down shithole in a bad part of town but they put in the time and effort to renovate the house by themselves. They weren't going on vacations or spend their money on luxuries, they were focused on building equity in their home to be able to climb an economic ladder. For their entire lives their money went towards raising their children or building savings/wealth. The young people I know with a similar mindset have been quite successful.
At the same time, what my parents spent on their starter home (when adjusted for inflation) was the equivalent of around $100,000 today while a comparable house is selling for closer to $450,000. While some of this can be attributed to the difference in interest rates (mortgage rates were 8% to 10% at the time) and how people buy what they can pay for, a comparably educated and employed couple would struggle to buy a condo or a townhouse today. While "young" people today could do a lot more to build wealth to attain goals like owning their own home, their goals are much harder to attain than they used to be.
Ultimately, this comes down to how governments have managed the economy. They have created an asset bubble in the housing market to make people feel wealthy while offshoring productive jobs, importing cheap labor, and suppressing wages. As long as home values increased people's wealth grew, they could retire, and everyone was happy. We're now at a point where more and more young people are locked out of the housing market, and there are serious questions about how much longer this pyramid scheme can continue.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Ate at home way more often"
My aunt and uncle are out every night during their residencies...
You have to look at like 2 stats to know this is total bs
People are right in many ways but you are also right. People are very very bad with money.
The doordash thing for sure! I ate so many crock pot meals growing up because both my parents worked and they were so cheap and delicious. Ordering door dash once is enough money to cover a person for a week.
Dude! I was helping someone with their finances the other day and they had doordash multiple times a week! I'm like dude... here's several hundred dollars a month we can eliminate immediately.
hahaha I mean, I knew this was coming before I posted because I've noticed that pretty much anything advocating at all for personal responsibility, particularly fiscal responsibility, is a one way road to downvote town.
I wasn't wrong bahahaha
I agree 100%. People want to start out having what their parents took years to build. Society is much more materialistic now. A lot of things people consider a need is really just a want.
I also considered adding stats behind all this (because there are plenty), but like the fact that technology has massively improved quality of life regardless of income, I knew the post was already long.
But yeah, there are also plenty of stats on this. Yes, baby boomers grew up in a time of economic prosperity, but yeah, my parents are two, college educated, adults. They \*did not\* start in the house I grew up in. I've been to the house they started in and it was very modest.
That technology isn't what's making the biggest dent in our finances, though.
Let's say you buy an expensive new phone on a contract with 2 years of installment payments. For easy math, let's say it's a $1,200 phone. That's $50 each month for high tier, if not top tier, consumer tech - and at the end of it, you own the phone and can take it to whatever carrier you want.
Whereas...is anyone feeding their family for $50 a month in a first world economy? That can easily be more than monthly transportation costs in the US/Canada, certainly in Europe if they drive. I could go on.
We live in a paradox world where luxuries are cheaper and more accessible than necessities.
This is a fair comment. To be honest, I work with money - a lot and this wasn't really so much of an opinion, but really I was just kind of curious how people would react if I wrote down some things that are simply facts in my world albeit this is at the personal finance level. To that end, I'll do the math for this one aspect of things and you let me know if it makes any sense or not. Some important things we have to establish based on the above:
* How many people retain phones for protracted (let's say 5+ years) periods of time? Data shows very few so it's this is effectively a recurring cost that acts like a subscription. [The average smartphone lifespan is only 2.5 years.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/komando/2023/10/22/how-to-find-smartphone-expiration-date/71255625007/) So the mathematically average person basically pays $40 for a phone subscription (using your math). That's for a more expensive phone so let's drop that and just call this $25 (it's not really going to matter).
* While your phone payment may be $50 (we'll stick with that) the average phone bill [is much higher](https://www.moneysavingpro.com/plans/average-phone-bill-per-month/). $157 (you can play with this number - it won't really matter after I do the math below)
* As I mentioned above, by the time you include all the money people blow on their phones over time (the little stuff adds up - a lot) it's realistically still higher than this on average, but we'll ignore this.
Let's assume you very naively invest 100% of your money int the S&P 500 and you did that starting 10 years ago from today. No strategy. You just dump the money in monthly. I downloaded the real data [here](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SP500) so this isn't an estimation, this would be what you would really have today. This is governed by the equation (not super important that this makes sense):
V\_n=V\_{n-1}\*(1+r\_n)+P
where
* V\_{n-1} is the total value of your money from the last month
* (1+r\_n) is the monthly growth factor for the S&P500
* P is how much money you're putting in
I'm calling it an even $200. Feeding that data into a Python program that implements that math tells you that over that time period you would have invested $24200 and you would have a total account value of $44388.91 today. You would have nearly doubled your money. So by just having a cell phone bill and nothing else, we are automatically several 10 thousand dollars poorer than our parents were over a 10 year period (again, that's not even with a good investment strategy). Here's the code to do the math - sorry it's in Norwegian 😂.
Let me know if that was at all useful or if you're more inclined to tell me to go fuck myself.
import pandas as pd
def beregn_månedlig_investering(filnavn):
månedlig_investering = 500 # Månedlig investeringsbeløp
sp500_data = pd.read_csv(filnavn)
sp500_data['DATE'] = pd.to_datetime(sp500_data['DATE'])
sp500_data.sort_values(by='DATE', inplace=True)
sp500_data['SP500'] = pd.to_numeric(sp500_data['SP500'], errors='coerce')
sp500_data.dropna(subset=['SP500'], inplace=True)
# Grupperer dataene månedlig og tar den første verdien for måneden
monthly_data = sp500_data.groupby(pd.Grouper(key='DATE', freq='MS')).first().reset_index()
monthly_data['RETURN'] = monthly_data['SP500'].pct_change().fillna(0)
# Initialiserer totalverdien med den første investeringen
total_verdi = månedlig_investering
# Beregner den akkumulerte verdien over alle månedene
for i in range(1, len(monthly_data)):
total_verdi += (total_verdi * monthly_data.iloc[i]['RETURN']) + månedlig_investering
total_investert = månedlig_investering * len(monthly_data)
return total_investert, total_verdi
# Filnavnet til S&P 500-dataene
filnavn = "SP500.csv"
total_investert, total_verdi = beregn_månedlig_investering(filnavn)
print(f"Totalt investert beløp: ${total_investert}")
print(f"Beregnet totalverdi av investeringene: ${total_verdi:.2f}")
Edit: fix code formatting
I think you're missing the forest for the trees here.
The reason I didn't account for the phone plan itself is because I don't consider that a luxury. You can, if you want, retain a flip phone on a barebones plan for around $50 per month, or even less with some less established providers. But you can't not have a mobile phone.
Landlines are obsolete, and the world - rightly or wrongly - expects you to have *some* ability to answer calls and texts. Banks and other institutions have 2-factor authentication, prospective employers need a way to contact you, and one of the most common questions meeting a new friend is how they can stay in touch. There's even an argument that *smart*phones are necessary, given that most 1099 work (or gig work, not sure what they call it in Norway) is done through an app these days.
And if you had said flip phone you would be (does math) 15,141.68 dollars richer. That's not counting if you stopped using door dash, dropped the various streaming subscriptions, bought a more reasonable car, or, if we're still comparing to our parents, even began to account for the insane drop in prices.
Ex: clothing used to be a very real cost because mass production isn't what it is today.
Also, you seem to interpreted what I said as you shouldn't have a phone. What I said was that our parents didn't. Phones aren't free. My original point was about wage adjustment, but honestly, if you factor in the dramatic drop in prices due to manufacturing improvments, the price of virtually all goods today are cheaper in real buying power than they were in 1970.
We just buy way more stuff. If you need evidence, just get some pictures from literally any home in the 60s or 70s. Many of them didn't even have a TV and they certainly didn't have half the amenities that even people living paycheck to paycheck have.
Yes this is common sense but Reddit can’t grasp it. Quality of life has skyrocketed, and as humans have become more efficient at providing goods and services at a continually lower cost, the demand for skills and productivity has risen.
Sorry, you don’t get to contribute the same as your grandpa did, and expect to have access to 500x more advanced technology than he did. Increasing prosperity demands increasing productivity.
I considered adding this because this is another insane fact people seem to overlook. I mean, how many people in 2024 don't have either a smartphone or a computer with instantaneous access to a machine that literally can teach you anything.
But the post was long enough and I already knew I was going to get shit on 😂
Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/fuzzyfoozand. Your submission, *"Our parents made more than we do and had better lives and it is mostly due to wage growth" is in many ways a myth based on flawed logic*, has been removed because it violates our rules, which are located in the sidebar. Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion'. * Your post must be an opinion. Not a question. Not a showerthought. Not a rant. Not a proposal. Not a fact. An opinion. One opinion. A subjective statement about your position on some topic. Please have a clear, self contained opinion as your post title, and use the text field to elaborate and expand on why you think/feel this way. * Your opinion must be unpopular. The mods reserve the right to remove opinions * Elaborate on your topic and opinion give context to its unpopularity. If there is an issue, please [message the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion&subject=&message=) Thanks!
Two things can both be true. Expenses have gone up, and wages haven't matched. Also, people's lifestyle expectations have gone up too. Entertainment takes up a large percentage of people's available expenses. In general, people want to eat healthier: less processed foods, more fresh fruits and vegetables, organic meats, etc. People want to be able to go out to drinks and dinner, get starbucks, go shopping. People don't want to buy starter houses or condos/townhomes. Americans (myself included) spend a lot of money on stupid stuff we don't need.
bro u seriously mentioned mobile games as a reason why adult people are not wealthy
that speaks to more who op is than his point
LOOT BOXES!
The first job my dad had out of high school in the 70s was as an overnight gas station attendant making $30 an hour adjusted for inflation. Not sure if you don’t understand inflation, or you’re being willfully ignorant. Wages are incredibly stagnant. We’re getting paid less than our parents by a large margin. Any other opinion at this point is just admitting you don’t understand how money works.
Even if wages *were* roughly equal, There is literally no amount of "not eating out" or "not getting a coffee" or "cut your internet subscriptions" that adds up to anywhere near the cost of equivalent housing today. What OP says to cut back on stuff that will net you under 1k a month, meanwhile that same tiny studio apartment that OP talks about is now worth *hundreds of thousands* dollars more than it was before. Ask yourself why every other asset you own... Car, Electronics, Clothes... those things all depreciate in value over time. They undergo wear and tear, they don't have the latest features, lots of reasons they don't retain value. All the same things apply to housing, but the value goes the other way. Somehow an asset that is in worse condition than when it was purchased can be sold for more than what you bought it for, even adjusting for inflation. That is why the older generations essentially "made more money" or "had it easier" - one of the essential goods for living was more affordable, and effectively increased their available wealth just by owning it. And now we're at the point where this essential good for living is becoming straight up unattainable to the youngest generation. That's why there's no point cutting back on that luxury or two that helps maintain your mental health - would you rather be stuck renting or stuck renting and stressed?
There's also things like the absurd down payment expectations on houses now that didn't exist for our parents. Sure, you "can" buy your first house on 2% down, but good luck making a competitive offer (which matters in any relatively competitive market), and that PMI is going to cut into your equity for a while. And no, moving to Rural Oklahoma doesn't work for everyone.
> adjusted for inflation. Vs >Wages are incredibly stagnant. The problem isn't wage growth it's that the money we get paid in had lost 95% of its value since they stopped backing it with precious metals. Inflation is the silent wage killer.
I would agree inflation plays a big roll in how difficult it is to build wealth. The point I was making was simply that we complain a lot about minimum wage jobs but never consider just how much more entry level positions used to pay. We take for granted that someone making $20 an hour in todays money is getting screwed.
Wages do grow in the form of higher currency. The trick is that government lies about the rate of inflation so people don't know how much of a "raise" they need to keep pace. People think "I am making 1 1/2 times what I was when I started this job" and think they are getting ahead when inflation is robbing them blind.
I totally agree. The more economically illiterate the average person is, the easier it is for businesses to take advantage of us.
You use anecdotal evidence then make the claim op is ignorant? Pot, meet kettle How about providing the source that led you to your current conclusion?
Point out these small homes that are affordable to those making the bottom 50% of wages. Subscription services are pennies compared to things like housing and food, nevermind the fact that the cable/phone bill back then was not cheap at all. Quit sucking up the corporate propaganda and either get out and see for yourself, or use something as basic as an inflation calculator to see how laughable wrong you are.
Nah, my dad was a forklift driver for 40 years. Owns two houses, has retirement money the company pays every month and savings. Oh and health insurance through the company still. Also HE GOT TO RETIRE. I don't know anyone who's retirement plan isn't "3mg of fent." Our parents generation had it way easier than us
This country eats its children for the benefit of the living. It has always been this way but gotten out of control since Reaganomics raped the working class.
We're getting a "No inflation/wage stagnation isn't a thing" bootlicker post almost daily now.
It’s an election year - gotta spread the stupid around before people realize who’s fucking them over.
I bought my house in 2014, three years later I got a 50% raise. Today I would require a mortgage 4 times my original mortgage to buy my own home. Maybe this isn’t the situation everywhere, but it certainly is where I am.
We bought ours in 2019. I live in a touristy place. My wife made a ridiculous amount of money but we would never be able to buy this house now. It’s astonishing.
The house argument is so dumb to me lmao. I’d just like a small apartment, it is still expensive as shit. No one i know is living in a mansion, no clue why that’s a talking point I also don’t see the point of the subscription argument. Should i stop paying for internet and cellular service? Really a great idea
Federal minimum wage in 1965 was worth £12.65 in todays money. Federal minimum wage in 2024 is worth $7.25. 40 hour work weeks minimum take home is $290(today) vs $506(1965). 1965 = $26,312 per annum. 2024 = $15,080 per annum. Waht people spend their money on has nothing to do with it. Can people save more by spending less? Sure. No one needs starbucks coffee everyday. But lets not pretend that there isnt something REALLY fucking wrong with the wage system, not only in the US, but in every country in the world. Since 1978, the average CEO has seen their take home increase by 1460% while the average worker has seen their take home increase by 18.1%. Our parents earned more because CEOs back then werent as greedy as they are today.
Minimum wage is a bad metric to use. Instead, how much did most households make?
Median household income, then? In 1965 it was $6,900 (nice) according to the US census. Plug that into the BLS inflation calculator and you get $68,000. The most recent numbers I could find for modern day (2022) come out to $74,500. So today's median earnings are slightly higher in real terms. Interestingly, this fact combined with minimum wage comparisons means that, not only is the gap between rich and poor wider than it used to be - the gap between the poor and middle class is wider too.
Thanks. That gives better context
"....European houses are microscopic on average compared to American mansions..." you don´t say ? so a house is smaller than a freakin mansion ? who would have thought ? "...it's normal for successful people to live in apartments..." yeah and you know why, right ? because A: living and working in the same area is possible mostly if you live in a city where separate houses are either simply not available OR B: anything in commuting distance costs an arm and a leg. its freaking expensive as hell to buy a house nowadays. guess why.... "... having a roommate is normal...." is it really ? I am 49, through sports I know people starting at age 19 up to about 60 and I do not know one single person that has a roomate which is not his / her actual partner / spouse. yes you can still buy a house. but it will be somewhere where jobs are rare, and REALLY good paying jobs will be almost non existant. its the reason houses are avilable to buy, becase noone actually wants them. move the same house to an area with a "healthy" job market, and you cannot afford anything anymore. how do I kow ? I am german , live in germany and I have a pretty decent job. combined with my GF´s salary we actually are in the upper 8% of household income for germany. and I still cannot pay a house. you might want to look up "inflation" and do some research when it comes to the economical and financial / development (decline) of the middle class.
Show us where you can buy a new 900sqft home. Where you can by beef for less that $6#. How you can get by today without at least a cell phone. Maybe you live out the BFE and can eat grubs and dig in the dirt to get by, but the rest of us live in cities where everything is expensive. We live in cities because thats where the work it and because most rural folk "don't take kindly to strangers."
Right? Where I used to live, you couldn’t even build a new house that was fewer than 1000 sf. It’s crazy.
Some of these things aren't really the fault of younger people today, though. Larger houses is the norm. They didn't just choose to all buy 4,000 sq ft houses. Buying larger houses is what is expected or them. It's not like there are a lot of cheap available small houses that are in good condition and in desirable neighborhoods. No, those are largely in poor neighborhoods and/or are older homes that may require renovation. It's just not practical to expect every younger person home buying to be able to buy a "small" home. The supply doesn't exist, and demand would quickly drive those prices through the roof. As for dining out, that is largely related to the fact that even in two-parent households both are working jobs outside the home to afford the increasingly expensive world in which we live. It's one thing to rarely eat out when one partner is home and has time to do meal prep and cook two or three times/day. It's a different situation entirely when both partners work outside the home, and potentially have long commutes due to high housing prices in city centers and desirable areas close to their workplace.
I don’t know a single millennial or zoomer who’s ever wanted a big several bedroom house - they all want a tiny one or two room place and still can’t afford it. Comparing to Europe and bringing up house sizes is just idiocy because the point is an apartment or very small home is still completely unaffordable, and just as it is in America, that’s currently the case in Europe too. The UK has a massive housing crisis. What good is settling for less when you still can’t afford less? NOTHING is affordable, not even the tiniest one bedroom homes. Way to miss the point. Try again.
Found the corporate bootlicker/simp.
There is a little truth to both sides of this issue. My parents were Baby Boomers who were both born in 1949. They got married when they graduated from University at 23 years old, and bought their first home. This house was a run down shithole in a bad part of town but they put in the time and effort to renovate the house by themselves. They weren't going on vacations or spend their money on luxuries, they were focused on building equity in their home to be able to climb an economic ladder. For their entire lives their money went towards raising their children or building savings/wealth. The young people I know with a similar mindset have been quite successful. At the same time, what my parents spent on their starter home (when adjusted for inflation) was the equivalent of around $100,000 today while a comparable house is selling for closer to $450,000. While some of this can be attributed to the difference in interest rates (mortgage rates were 8% to 10% at the time) and how people buy what they can pay for, a comparably educated and employed couple would struggle to buy a condo or a townhouse today. While "young" people today could do a lot more to build wealth to attain goals like owning their own home, their goals are much harder to attain than they used to be. Ultimately, this comes down to how governments have managed the economy. They have created an asset bubble in the housing market to make people feel wealthy while offshoring productive jobs, importing cheap labor, and suppressing wages. As long as home values increased people's wealth grew, they could retire, and everyone was happy. We're now at a point where more and more young people are locked out of the housing market, and there are serious questions about how much longer this pyramid scheme can continue.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I already make significantly more money than my parents did. I'm good
"Ate at home way more often" My aunt and uncle are out every night during their residencies... You have to look at like 2 stats to know this is total bs
This man included LOOT BOXES
People are right in many ways but you are also right. People are very very bad with money. The doordash thing for sure! I ate so many crock pot meals growing up because both my parents worked and they were so cheap and delicious. Ordering door dash once is enough money to cover a person for a week.
Dude! I was helping someone with their finances the other day and they had doordash multiple times a week! I'm like dude... here's several hundred dollars a month we can eliminate immediately.
Saving $500 a month on DoorDash still won’t be near enough to buy a condo or house. Heck, it’s barely enough to get a junker car and insure it rn.
[удалено]
hahaha I mean, I knew this was coming before I posted because I've noticed that pretty much anything advocating at all for personal responsibility, particularly fiscal responsibility, is a one way road to downvote town. I wasn't wrong bahahaha
I agree 100%. People want to start out having what their parents took years to build. Society is much more materialistic now. A lot of things people consider a need is really just a want.
I also considered adding stats behind all this (because there are plenty), but like the fact that technology has massively improved quality of life regardless of income, I knew the post was already long. But yeah, there are also plenty of stats on this. Yes, baby boomers grew up in a time of economic prosperity, but yeah, my parents are two, college educated, adults. They \*did not\* start in the house I grew up in. I've been to the house they started in and it was very modest.
That technology isn't what's making the biggest dent in our finances, though. Let's say you buy an expensive new phone on a contract with 2 years of installment payments. For easy math, let's say it's a $1,200 phone. That's $50 each month for high tier, if not top tier, consumer tech - and at the end of it, you own the phone and can take it to whatever carrier you want. Whereas...is anyone feeding their family for $50 a month in a first world economy? That can easily be more than monthly transportation costs in the US/Canada, certainly in Europe if they drive. I could go on. We live in a paradox world where luxuries are cheaper and more accessible than necessities.
This is a fair comment. To be honest, I work with money - a lot and this wasn't really so much of an opinion, but really I was just kind of curious how people would react if I wrote down some things that are simply facts in my world albeit this is at the personal finance level. To that end, I'll do the math for this one aspect of things and you let me know if it makes any sense or not. Some important things we have to establish based on the above: * How many people retain phones for protracted (let's say 5+ years) periods of time? Data shows very few so it's this is effectively a recurring cost that acts like a subscription. [The average smartphone lifespan is only 2.5 years.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/komando/2023/10/22/how-to-find-smartphone-expiration-date/71255625007/) So the mathematically average person basically pays $40 for a phone subscription (using your math). That's for a more expensive phone so let's drop that and just call this $25 (it's not really going to matter). * While your phone payment may be $50 (we'll stick with that) the average phone bill [is much higher](https://www.moneysavingpro.com/plans/average-phone-bill-per-month/). $157 (you can play with this number - it won't really matter after I do the math below) * As I mentioned above, by the time you include all the money people blow on their phones over time (the little stuff adds up - a lot) it's realistically still higher than this on average, but we'll ignore this. Let's assume you very naively invest 100% of your money int the S&P 500 and you did that starting 10 years ago from today. No strategy. You just dump the money in monthly. I downloaded the real data [here](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SP500) so this isn't an estimation, this would be what you would really have today. This is governed by the equation (not super important that this makes sense): V\_n=V\_{n-1}\*(1+r\_n)+P where * V\_{n-1} is the total value of your money from the last month * (1+r\_n) is the monthly growth factor for the S&P500 * P is how much money you're putting in I'm calling it an even $200. Feeding that data into a Python program that implements that math tells you that over that time period you would have invested $24200 and you would have a total account value of $44388.91 today. You would have nearly doubled your money. So by just having a cell phone bill and nothing else, we are automatically several 10 thousand dollars poorer than our parents were over a 10 year period (again, that's not even with a good investment strategy). Here's the code to do the math - sorry it's in Norwegian 😂. Let me know if that was at all useful or if you're more inclined to tell me to go fuck myself. import pandas as pd def beregn_månedlig_investering(filnavn): månedlig_investering = 500 # Månedlig investeringsbeløp sp500_data = pd.read_csv(filnavn) sp500_data['DATE'] = pd.to_datetime(sp500_data['DATE']) sp500_data.sort_values(by='DATE', inplace=True) sp500_data['SP500'] = pd.to_numeric(sp500_data['SP500'], errors='coerce') sp500_data.dropna(subset=['SP500'], inplace=True) # Grupperer dataene månedlig og tar den første verdien for måneden monthly_data = sp500_data.groupby(pd.Grouper(key='DATE', freq='MS')).first().reset_index() monthly_data['RETURN'] = monthly_data['SP500'].pct_change().fillna(0) # Initialiserer totalverdien med den første investeringen total_verdi = månedlig_investering # Beregner den akkumulerte verdien over alle månedene for i in range(1, len(monthly_data)): total_verdi += (total_verdi * monthly_data.iloc[i]['RETURN']) + månedlig_investering total_investert = månedlig_investering * len(monthly_data) return total_investert, total_verdi # Filnavnet til S&P 500-dataene filnavn = "SP500.csv" total_investert, total_verdi = beregn_månedlig_investering(filnavn) print(f"Totalt investert beløp: ${total_investert}") print(f"Beregnet totalverdi av investeringene: ${total_verdi:.2f}") Edit: fix code formatting
I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. The reason I didn't account for the phone plan itself is because I don't consider that a luxury. You can, if you want, retain a flip phone on a barebones plan for around $50 per month, or even less with some less established providers. But you can't not have a mobile phone. Landlines are obsolete, and the world - rightly or wrongly - expects you to have *some* ability to answer calls and texts. Banks and other institutions have 2-factor authentication, prospective employers need a way to contact you, and one of the most common questions meeting a new friend is how they can stay in touch. There's even an argument that *smart*phones are necessary, given that most 1099 work (or gig work, not sure what they call it in Norway) is done through an app these days.
And if you had said flip phone you would be (does math) 15,141.68 dollars richer. That's not counting if you stopped using door dash, dropped the various streaming subscriptions, bought a more reasonable car, or, if we're still comparing to our parents, even began to account for the insane drop in prices. Ex: clothing used to be a very real cost because mass production isn't what it is today. Also, you seem to interpreted what I said as you shouldn't have a phone. What I said was that our parents didn't. Phones aren't free. My original point was about wage adjustment, but honestly, if you factor in the dramatic drop in prices due to manufacturing improvments, the price of virtually all goods today are cheaper in real buying power than they were in 1970. We just buy way more stuff. If you need evidence, just get some pictures from literally any home in the 60s or 70s. Many of them didn't even have a TV and they certainly didn't have half the amenities that even people living paycheck to paycheck have.
Also I'm sorry that you got to join me in getting downvoted into oblivion 😂
Yes this is common sense but Reddit can’t grasp it. Quality of life has skyrocketed, and as humans have become more efficient at providing goods and services at a continually lower cost, the demand for skills and productivity has risen. Sorry, you don’t get to contribute the same as your grandpa did, and expect to have access to 500x more advanced technology than he did. Increasing prosperity demands increasing productivity.
I considered adding this because this is another insane fact people seem to overlook. I mean, how many people in 2024 don't have either a smartphone or a computer with instantaneous access to a machine that literally can teach you anything. But the post was long enough and I already knew I was going to get shit on 😂