Slashdot Mirror


Millennials Set To Earn Less Than Generation X (bbc.com)

Reader AmiMoJo writes: Millennials are set to become the first generation to earn less than their predecessors, new research suggests. The Resolution Foundation found that under-35s earned 8,000 pound ($10,600) less in their twenties than Generation X workers. If wages for millennials follow the same path as Generation X, average career earnings will be about 825,000 pound ($1.1m). That would make them the first generation to earn less than their predecessors over the course of their working lives. Research found that some of the pay squeeze was due to under-35s entering the job market as the recession hit, but it also concluded that generational pay progress had ground to a halt even before the financial crisis struck in 2007/8.

50 of 614 comments (clear)

  1. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Good!

    1. Re:Good! by chipschap · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's because of global warming.

    2. Re:Good! by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The entitlement generation getting LESS than anyone else!

      Cause and effect: they only sound entitled to assholes like you because they're actually getting screwed and complaining about it! Jeez, it's like Oliver fucking Twist around here!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Good! by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But why are you getting less? Too many Grievance Studies majors? Companies seeking skilled labor, from developers to the skilled trades, are still see labor shortages, so why the disparity? Too few skilled workers? Too much immigration?

      The UK in particular had a huge wave of immigration, which may have destroyed the ability to make a living wage from unskilled labor, and put a lot of pressure on semi-skilled workers. Is that the problem?

      Or maybe we have a generation that never learned to stick it out through adversity to get to the goal? Maybe. Point is, everyone thinks they're getting screwed, but only losers rest behind "the man is keeping me down, and there's nothing I can do".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Good! by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But why are you getting less? Too many Grievance Studies majors? Companies seeking skilled labor, from developers to the skilled trades, are still see labor shortages, so why the disparity? Too few skilled workers? Too much immigration?

      Another term for 'labor shortage' is 'salary increase', and nobody's seeing that happen.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    5. Re:Good! by SQLGuru · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Socialism is the participation trophy of life.

    6. Re:Good! by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You are just repeating the oldest of all memes about the next generation. To the older generation, the next generation is always lazy, overconfident, whiney and doesn't know how to work. So your "evidence" is worth exactly nil, as the generation before you made the same experience with you and thought you would be lazy, overconfident, whiney and you didn't know how to work. And you just proved them right by being whiney about the next generation, overconfident in believing to be better than them and too lazy to do the hard work to really get them into the daily process of working.

      What we have, despite you feeling entitled and being the special snowflake and superior to everyone coming after you (typical for people of the current generation), is for the first time, the next generation (which will also think that the generation after her will be lazy, whiney, overconfident and not knowing what hard work is) will be earning less than you.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:Good! by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, let's take a look at how "fine" salaries are today. Here's some numbers.

      So, over the last 47 years, we've got a whopping 21% growth in the median salary. That's a roughly 0.4% annual growth rate, on average. That's all we've gotten from widespread automation, swapping out typists for software engineers, etc.

      If these remarkable advancements in technology are only giving us 0.4% annual growth in salaries, is it even worth it? Society sure seems to get more than 0.4% more complicated every year. Work seems to get a lot more than 0.4% demanding every year.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    8. Re: Good! by narcc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think I can explain that.

      Selfishness and greed are, in their eyes, the only "rational" attitudes. You need to put your own needs first if you want to win the evolution game.

      They see concepts like 'integrity' and 'concern for others' as irrational. They believe that no rational person would put others ahead of themselves. They believe that those nasty selfless actions can only bring about the end of humanity as it unnaturally allows the weak to survive and prosper, when they should suffer and die to make way for those better fit. Though they sometimes believe that if the lesser are of any use, they could be allowed the minimum needed to survive, but should not be allowed to reproduce.

      The only groups of which they're aware that dare to promote those detestable values are Millennials and SJW's. They think Millennials qualify because kids these days are nothing but a bunch of lazy and entitled leaches on society. (Not unlike how previous generations viewed Gen-X'ers and Boomers.) They've already forgotten what SJW means, but they're pretty sure it's a bad thing. All the same, the important thing is they think those groups want to promote equality as it's in their best interests as they're nothing but a bunch of lazy bottom-feeders.

      Can you think of anything more disgusting to people like the parent poster than equality? Their worldview demands that there are strong and weak, fit and unfit, winners and losers. (You can talk about advantages and disadvantages outside an individuals control, but they deny those are significant factors in an individual person's success. Oh, in case you didn't know, success is defined entirely in terms of income and/or accumulated wealth.)

      As only Millennials and SJW's would dare to suggest that disturbing things like 'equality' and 'integrity' are actually positive attributes, you must be among them.

  2. I'm totally shocked... by HBI · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The generation after the long IT boom inaugurated in the early 1980s and finishing off in about 2001 is going to earn less than their predecessors. Color me unsurprised. We squandered the fruits of that on peak socialism. Now the long slide since 2008 will continue until some disruptive element creates economic opportunity. I'm not exactly holding my breath.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:I'm totally shocked... by thaylin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So with lower taxes we squandered it on socialism? Could it be that this is just an effect of capitalism? driving down costs == driving down wages.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re:I'm totally shocked... by sinij · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We squandered the fruits of that on peak socialism.

      I think you meant to write peak corporate welfare, because at least in US social nets were/are being cut at least since Reagan era, if not earlier.

    3. Re:I'm totally shocked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Must be a baby boomer.. What is the real problem? Less scholarships, less school availability per capita, huge healthcare expenses related to corrupted healthcare segment that consumes a third of our GDP, non-stop bailouts of rich institutions that are not improving. All of this has to do with baby-boomer policies and nothing with socialism. For socialism - see Sweden, they have great futures ahead of their children. Our children are moving down into the gutter. Thanks, baby boomers.

    4. Re:I'm totally shocked... by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, yeah, you can both be right. Taxes went down, but spending didn't. And of course WHAT we spend on matters, and we spend a lot more of our GDP on social programs than we used to.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:I'm totally shocked... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nah, we screwed the millennials by changing to an economy built on debt and by turning stuff people need into unaffordable assets, e.g. houses. Any social benefits were removed, like free university education.

      It's anti-socialism. Socialism would never have allowed the end of building social housing or needing two incomes to raise a family.

      Oh, and by "we", I mean "baby boomers". I'm gen X and wasn't old enough to vote when all this shit really started in the 80s.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:I'm totally shocked... by ohieaux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We squandered the fruits of that on peak socialism.

      I think you meant to write peak corporate welfare, because at least in US social nets were/are being cut at least since Reagan era, if not earlier.

      Multiple sources, like the US government, report that > 1/3 households are on means tested assistance (e.g. welfare). If you add unemployment, social security and other government pensions, you are at or near 50%. Is that more, or less, than when Reagan cut welfare? Or, was that (Bill) Clinton that that reformed welfare?

      --
      Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
    7. Re:I'm totally shocked... by Ogive17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If minimum wage kept up with inflation, maybe we wouldn't have so many people on welfare.

      It's a joke that someone can put 40 hours in per week with one employer and still need to work a 2nd job or require government assistance simply to pay the bills and put food on the table.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    8. Re:I'm totally shocked... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. And this sub-livable minimum wage amounts to a massive, unorganized corporate welfare scheme, paid by the family, friends, and government programs that subsidize the workers making sub-livable wages.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:I'm totally shocked... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ding ding ding!

      The money didn't disappear, the world's wealthiest people are simply hoarding it. In the '50s and '60s when sci-fi writers predicted that we'd be working 2 days a week by now and have a better standard of living to boot, that math had only one minor mistake - it assumed that wealth inequality wouldn't massively increase, funneling all that wealth into a new class of hyper-royalty.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:I'm totally shocked... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Insightful
      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  3. Standard of living by fropenn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But what really matters is standard of living. Sure, they might make less money, but in the 1980s a cell phone cost thousands and barely worked, compared to what you can get for a few hundred bucks and $30 a month. Earning less money != worse life.

    1. Re:Standard of living by sinij · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But what really matters is standard of living. Sure, they might make less money, but in the 1980s a cell phone cost thousands and barely worked, compared to what you can get for a few hundred bucks and $30 a month.

      Sure, we can buy electronics cheaply, but cost of housing, education, transportation are all significantly up at the same time as wages and unemployment are down.

    2. Re:Standard of living by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but in the 1980s a cell phone cost thousands and barely worked, compared to what you can get for a few hundred bucks and $30 a month.

      In the 1970's a kid straight out of high school could get a job, get married, buy a 3 bed house + garage + car in the suburbs and raise 2.6 children on one paycheck.
      Today's third level graduates look forward to a half decade of half-jobs, effective vagrancy, crippling rents, and the growing impossibility of being able to afford even an apartment + car on two salaries.

      Cheap smartphones with social media apps do not health or wealth create.

      Earning less money != worse life.

      Less wealth == less life.
      Millennials could earn twice what they do now and they'd still be less wealthy than their parents because globalisation has left the vast majority of them behind.
      The only numbers that really matter are the big ticket items. Phones are not those.

    3. Re:Standard of living by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A better metric would be rent/mortgage and other unavoidable costs as a proportion of income. They have all being going up. The boomers burnt all the cheap energy and broke the climate, and then bought up all the housing to use as assets while simultaneously objecting to any new stock being built.

      Millennials are actually paying for their retirements twice, once through taxes (pensions) and again through rent. And maybe an unpaid internship on the side, with a mountain of student debt on top.

      Actually, debt levels are another good indicator of quality of life. People with a lot of debt tend not to live such good lives.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Standard of living by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the 1970's a kid straight out of high school could get a job, get married, buy a 3 bed house + garage + car in the suburbs and raise 2.6 children on one paycheck.
      Today's third level graduates look forward to a half decade of half-jobs, effective vagrancy, crippling rents, and the growing impossibility of being able to afford even an apartment + car on two salaries.

      Compare the lifestyles though. The kid in the 1970's generally didn't care where he lived as long as he got that house (which BTW, was likely MUCH smaller than the average house of today - SQFT per occupant has gone up dramatically in the last ~30 years). Now people just have to live where it's "happening". Nobody wants to live in Boise - it's gotta be the bay area, or Austin, or New York.

      And how many of those "third level graduates" were for liberal arts degrees where you're really only equipped to teach what you studied in when you graduate, while 1970's kid in high school took up vocational classes in auto mechanics or HVAC - less glamorous or prestigious but ACTUAL USEFUL SKILLS. Those skills also translate well into being able to do a lot of your own home, auto, or other "around the house" type maintenance saving from having to call a repairman out every time you find a frayed cord. 30 years ago pretty much everyone was decently handy and knew how to fix basic stuff.

      And as stated - 1970's kid is doing all this on one salary. His wife/partner/other half is likely at home cooking all of their meals, rather than going downtown for organic artisan tacos and PBR's every night. When you're cooking your food at home you can afford to feed 5-6 people easily for what it would cost for one person to eat out. Now I'm not suggesting that women shouldn't be in the workforce at all (on the contrary I think its better how it is now), but it is a foolish notion to compare two time periods and say that now you NEED two incomes. You don't need it - it's just that now one partner who was once doing very real work to reduce the overhead needed to raise a family is now trading their time for extra income instead.

      Honestly, I don't get the mindset of comparing our supposedly rosy past to the present and then suggesting a huge turn towards Socialism as how we return to that. That certainly wasn't the system we had in place back then to get that result.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    5. Re:Standard of living by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice try, but no. Living in the trendy areas is even more out of reach for that high school kid. So much so that places in Ca are having trouble hiring police, firefighters, and teachers because they simply can't afford to live there, even on 2 paychecks.

      That small house in Boise is out of reach for a single income even if the kid went in to HVAC or auto mechanics and the wife stays home and cooks.

    6. Re:Standard of living by Sperbels · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I type and mouse all day. and due to tendonitis I'm painfully aware that working at a computer is still "working with your hands".

  4. Because... by Sperbels · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...America is in slow economic decline.

    1. Re:Because... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullshit! Why do I keep hearing that "America is in a slow economic decline, America is in a slow economic decline...", everyone parrots it and when asked to support that claim with at least a HINT of facts, nobody can back it up.

      There is nothing slow about it, really.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. And they're still OVERPAID! by drew_92123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most kids today have few if any marketable skills and are in piss poor physical shape and are unable to keep up with a demanding work environment.

    Sad but true... the current generation is fucking worthless.

    1. Re:And they're still OVERPAID! by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What? You mean that degree in gender studies and female studies is worthless? How can you say that? That only means more companies sorely need a Chief Diversity Officer and a Diversity Department!!!1111

      Just think: all those people with worthless degrees probably would have gone straight to work after high school or learned a trade, if it weren't for dumbass Boomer and Gen-X parents and guidance counselors blatantly lying to them about how "necessary" a college degree (any college degree) was!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:And they're still OVERPAID! by Rakarra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just think: all those people with worthless degrees probably would have gone straight to work after high school or learned a trade

      Unless you're going to be a plumber, there aren't many of those jobs left. The US has exported most of its low-skill manufacturing, and the low-skill construction and agricultural and custodial jobs tend to go to illegal immigrants because permanent residents want a higher salary. Go figure.

  6. Perhaps they should stop chasing pokemon by KalvinB · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is plenty of money to be made if young people would stop squandering their youth.

    Generation X had to learn how to make the things that the current generation just consumes today.

    Having a computer in the early 90's or late 80's meant you had parents who cared about technology and spent a huge portion of their income to get it.

    Despite the amazingly cheap and plentiful access to technology today to learn anything for almost nothing, the current generation spends the majority of their time watching YouTube and Netflix.

    And they wonder why their income is low.

    Gen X isn't dead yet. If you'd rather watch YouTube and be useless, we'll happily make buckets of money that you could be making as well.

    1. Re:Perhaps they should stop chasing pokemon by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think I should point out how addicted to TV Generation X is/was. I think your backwards-vision is rose tinted.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Perhaps they should stop chasing pokemon by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Go to southeast China and work there.

      Translation: "I got mine, so fuck you!"

      Well, fuck you too!

      You goddamned Boomers and Gen-Xers didn't "work;" the Boomers got paid fat union wages for doing jack shit and then the Gen-Xers got paid corporate-raider bonuses for dismantling the unions and outsourcing the jobs! The older generations have executed scorched-earth economic policy, then hypocritically blame the Millennials when they complain that there's nothing left.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  7. There is no smoking gun. It's an arsenal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IMHO, these are the big issues causing this"

    1) The wealth gap today is close to what it was in the "Roaring Twenties".
    2) College is in a bubble due to government subsidies; raising the cost of college for everyone
    3) Entire industries are no longer being created like they used to (Railroad, Oil, Automobiles, Planes, Computers, etc...)
    4) Technical innovation is just "Uber-izing" everything. Jobs that can be automated, will be. Companies of the future will just be a CEO and a CTO. Everyone else not creating or automating things will earn less and less income.
    5) Globalization is feeding the wealth gap more so than ever before. The wealthy ruling class are turning governments into corporate oligarchies.
    6) The career ladder is more about where you were born that what you can do. Meritocracy, to a large extent, is becoming more and more of a myth. If you were born in a rich neighborhood and go to a private school. /rant

  8. I recall hearing similar growing up as a GenXer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When I grew up in the 80's I seem to recall hearing numerous times that we would be the first generation in history to do worse off than our parents. Perhaps due to gas prices hitting astronomical levels by now.

  9. Re:Globalization is GREAT! by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That "reform" you and your parents pulled off of Social Security in the mid-80s was a nice trick. Create a "trust fund" and then spend the trust fund on regular expenses, making sure future generations get to pay for your day-to-day. Also, thanks for all of the free trade deals that don't take into account the warping of the free market due to the inability of labor to freely move around. You even have "free market" people believing that free trade == free market. I bought it hook, line, and sinker in my teens and 20s. Nice job.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  10. Not so fast, there... by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Make no mistake, this didn't start with the Millennials. We started firmly down this path in the 1930s; WWII saved our grandparents, the cold war saved our parents, and the advent of the "Computer Age" saved Gen-X.

    Unless the Millennials can pull a similar rabbit out of their hats, should it really surprise us that FDR's pyramid schemes (yes, plural) have finally run out of new suckers and can only head one way from here?

  11. An important thing to note by fubarrr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We not only earning less, we are being taxed up to two times more

    1. Re:An important thing to note by nomad63 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you are still voting for the same friggen administration, who taxed you to the hilt, over and again. Don't say you have not read Bernie Sanders' ideas on taxation and who are the biggest supporters of that hypocrite ?

      --

      __________
      The more I know people, the more I love animals
  12. Yeah, keep laughing, UMC by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the exact reason Brexit happened and why Trump will probably win. Living-wage jobs have been methodically destroyed on both sides of the pond by the greed-pig class. The result has been both the Oxbridge toffs and the Koch Brothers have completely lost control of the rabble they so easily roused over the last decade, paving the way for unhinged pricks like Farage and Trump.

    1. Re:Yeah, keep laughing, UMC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A lot of jobs in the EU have also moved to countries like Hungary, Poland or Estonia.

      or one of the real reasons for the Brexit - "a lot of Poland has moved to Britain".

    2. Re:Yeah, keep laughing, UMC by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trump is not going to win. He is pushing the two pieces of the electorate further apart, but he's on the side with the smaller number of voters. He's also almost completely useless with his ground game and his negatives are way too high. He's only talking to part of the Republican party at this point, and the Republicans need more than their membership to win to begin with.

      That said, I am concerned about what happens after Hillary wins and nothing really changes. She won't be the worst president we've ever had, but her existence in the office itself would represent business as usual. She's been the designated first female president since I can remember and pretty much represents the entitled political class. If the email fracas showed us anything is that, indictment or not, there is clearly a way things are done for people in her class, and how things are done for everyone else.

      I don't really want for there to be some sort of revolution, since that's bad for everyone. And for that reason we need someone who isn't just going to win because they're better than Trump. That's far too low a bar. Trump is far too easy to beat, and him losing is only going to make the mob madder.

  13. Re:Globalization is GREAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It sure is. Nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in 20 years. Or do you hate foreigners and support extreme poverty? Maybe we should keep them poor and send aid, it's another option.

    captcha: disrupts

  14. At $15 an hour? Forget ANY fast food labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All those jobs will be automated.

    The real minimum wage is $0.

  15. But aggregate wealth is growing... by monkeyxpress · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The economy has been growing quite steadily over this period, including since 2008. If that new wealth was divided up among American workers in the same way it was in the 1980s, then millennials would be better of than previous generations.

    So the problem is not that we need a disruptive source of economic opportunity, it is that the existing disruptive sources of economic opportunity are generating wealth that is simply accumulating among current holders of wealth, to the exclusion of new workers.

    Incidentally, such an in-equal wealth distribution could not - by definition - occur if the USA was the socialist country you seem to think it is.

  16. Don't blame the people, blame the environment by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I see a lot of "grumpy old man" posts (I'm 40 for context...) on this subject blaming entitlement and other reasons for this. I don't see it that way...I haven't run into any of the stereotypical Millennials with a capital M that the media describes -- remember, Generation X were supposed to be "slackers" in the 90s also. So, I don't think it's the people. I think it's the work environment. Work is very different from the golden age of the 50s through the 70s in the US...
    - After WW II, a family could live comfortably on a single income, and there was a reasonably good chance someone could keep their job for life and/or be promoted from within and gain success that way. And this is any family -- from the janitor to the CEO (relatively speaking of course.)
    - After the great corporate downsizing wave of the 90s, it was still possible to graduate from any college, with any degree in any field, and still find entry-level work. While it was less possible to do the single-income thing and required lots of sacrifice to do so, the opportunity existed.
    - Now, entry level tech jobs don't exist or are done offshore or by H-1B labor. The economy has fully adjusted to two-earner families, so it's basically impossible to be a single-earner family unless you live in a really cheap part of the country (where, consequently, there are no jobs anymore.)

    So, don't blame the Millennials. They're in a tough spot. I was very lucky in my early career to be able to work my way up from an entry-level support job to where I am now...that opportunity is much harder to come by now.

  17. Too limited a perspective by Bruce66423 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whilst it is true that WESTERN millennials are getting paid less than than parents generation, across the whole world, the opposite is the case. The raising of hundreds of millions from poverty in Asia and to a lesser extent Africa and Latin America means that the truth is far more complex. And this helps reveal the problem; given that increased competition from these areas exists, it is not a surprise if workers who are, in effect, in competition with these masses get to be paid less.

    Which doesn't mean that our own people don't have a problem, but any explanation which focuses on it as an unalloyed BAD THING is defective. Yet that is the message that is being presented by Trump and echoed to a lesser extent by Hilary. The result could be nasty.

  18. Google the phrase by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Starve the Beast". It's part of a larger right wing conspiracy to defund public programs so that taxes can be cut. They're not even hiding it. I do wish crazy people hadn't cooped the word "conspiracy" because when a real conspiracy is going on (two or more people working together to do something bad) nobody will believe you. You don't even need to make a straw man. It's like there's one for you already...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/