Slashdot Mirror
Nobody Is Moving, Especially Millennials (nymag.com)
For a fun new entry into millennials are lazy, consider this: According to new data tracked down by Richard Fry for Pew Research, just 20 percent of 25- to 35-year-olds (Old Millennials, if you will) reported having lived at a different address the previous year. From a report on NYMag: In 2000, a full 26 percent of Gen-Xers -- then at the same age range -- had reported making a move in the previous year. In 1963, members of the Silent Generation moved at a 26 percent rate, too. The census data being used here doesn't include college-dorm moves prevalent with 18- to 24-year-olds, so those young'uns are left out of the analysis. The 20 percent rate is the lowest level of young adult mobility in half a century, Fry reports, and all this with millennials getting married, owning homes, and having kids less than previous generations. Student debt and less favorable lending rates may be driving down homeownership -- imagine that -- which further reduces movement. Psychologically, this also means that young adults are more stuck with their personalities and faded of memory compared with their more mobile peers.
sure you might make more money cash wise, but you're going to be a perpetual renter aka sharecropper with nothing to your name
putting down roots means you can buy property at a younger age which means you will pay it off faster and have kids at a younger age. the perpetual movers will be the people having their first kid at 45 and no spare cash from having their rent increase all the time
Psychologically, this also means that young adults are more stuck with their personalities and faded of memory compared with their more mobile peers.
Practically, this means that the writer of this article is a psychobabbling fool.
We're waiting for the bubble to burst again. Hopefully this time they don't bail out the banks and and the idiots who bought mcmansions. The bailouts (including "Keep Your Home California") prevented me, a responsible, financially stable adult, from owning a home. Prices are over double what they should be in my area.
People don't have roommates, they have roomfamilies.
Millenials have fewer job prospects in general and are less wealthy than their parents were at the same age. This is true by a variety of different metrics. See e.g. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/01/13/millennials-falling-behind-boomer-parents/96530338/. In the last few years, something, it isn't clear what, has been drastically reducing the resources available to young people. This is combining with cost disease http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost-disease/ in a way that is leaving many people in the young age bracket with far less effective purchasing power than their parents would have had for many things. It isn't completely the case; some goods such as computers and cell phones are far cheaper (and often weren't even available to their parents) but that's a relatively small fraction of their total goods. Some other trends are clear positive, such as the reduction in poverty in the US, and the overall trends throughout the world are mainly positive. See e.g. https://singularityhub.com/2016/06/27/why-the-world-is-better-than-you-think-in-10-powerful-charts/. But the US specific young people are clearly going through a bad time in general.
"young adults are more stuck with their personalities and faded of memory "
what?
Nobody Is Moving, Especially Millennials
Dear Drake Baer and NY Mag Editors, If "nobody" is moving, then there cannot be an "especially".
Also, who cares? I'm 53 and have lived in the same house (which is paid for) since 1993 and the same city since 1980.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Clearly we need to mock and make fun of millennials more, previous disrespect has been inadequate to make them flourish just like the good ol' days.
In a slightly more serious note, this was predicted. A fair number of reputable economists warned us of our own lost generation after the 2008 crash. The bottom of the ladder got pulled and the replacement jobs available to low experience young folk are not as relatively good as what was available for other generations. So you have low wage earners with stacks of debt from surviving (how dare they!), and from getting a college degree like they were told was the only good path thousands of times (suckers!).
But it is easier to make fun of how they dress different, and use funny new words (like EVERY generation of young folks before them) than to fix the lack of good entry level jobs, low wages, expensive healthcare, and over priced tuition. It looks to me like society has failed a generation and they have made rational choices to live within their means to the extent possible.
Anyone that has kids has pretty much forfeited their ticket to the good life. Why anyone would waste hundreds of thousands of dollars bringing more people into an already overcrowded world that will surely disappoint them is completely beyond me, particularly when you consider the mobility and quality of life you will be sacrificing to make this happen simply to follow a biological imperative.
So this may sound crazy, but I wonder why today's twenty-somethings don't just simply default on their loans.
I'm a Gen Xer. I graduated college in 2000, just in time for the dot com bubble burst and 9/11 to mess with the economy. The only job I could find was as an overnight janitor at a hotel. I made $8 an hour.
There was no way I could afford both rent and student loans, so I simply didn't pay the loans. Sure it ruined my credit, but at $8 an hour it's not like anybody would be giving me loans anyways.
3.5 years later I got a job making $14 an hour, which allowed me to start paying the loans back again. As my career has progressed I've gotten promotions and raises and whatnot. Now I'm financially secure, the loans are all paid off and my credit score hovers around 750.
Careless lending by the banks is a big reason the economy is in the mess it's in today. Why pay them money before taking care of yourself? Maybe if banks were feeling some pain we'd actually see some social programs to help young people out.
I'm technically considered a Millennial, but I feel more Gen X than anything, 34 Years Old. I hate living in Cities. I prefer the suburbs or rural areas. My problem with owning a house right now is price. I live in the South Denver area. A 1200 sq/ft. home with a tiny yard where I currently reside is going for $350,000+. I recently sold my 496 sq/ft Condo in the same area for $140,000 less than 2 hours after it hit the market. Moved back in with my parents and am saving for a down payment on a house. Real Estate is just way too expensive. I could have rented my condo out if my HOA would have approved, (a whole other issue). A rental like that is going for around $1000 a month. It's ludicrous.
I am facing a different problem: "I'm not willing to move there".
We're not exactly in the middle of nowhere, but also we're an about 1.5 hours drive away from the next large city. Don't get it wrong, this ain't backwater nowhere, you have great internet connection and VERY affordable housing around here, and we're paying VERY well. Yet people are not willing to move those 1.5 hours away from where they're living.
Hell, I know people that commute 1.5 hours each way every single day!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Gen-X and boomers moved a lot when young because they got job offers and moved to take the job.
If the only jobs around are fast food and retail, there's no reason to move-- there are McDongles and Arpies all over.
Most of the stuff mentioned I can agree with. But less favorable lending rates? Only a Millennial ignorant of history would think that. Mortgage interest rates are the lowest they've been in 60 years. My generation (gen-x) had to deal with mortgage interest rates double what they are today. My parents had to deal with 17% interest rates. You have to go all the way back to 1955 to see interest rates as favorable as they are today.
With a 4% interest rate on a 30 year mortgage, 42% of your payments over the life of the loan are interest.
With a 8% interest rate, 62% of your payments are interest.
With a 17% interest rate, 81% of your payments are interest.
For just about anyone alive today, there has never been a better time to get a mortgage to buy a home.
I was trying to figure out what the hell that statement actually means.
Thinking back to when I was 18-25 I moved six times. Moving out, moving from ghetto apartment to share a house, moving because the landlord needed the house for the next generation to go to college. Moving out of the nice apartment because the landlord was tired of being a landlord in-general and wanted to sell (even offered to sell to me but it wasn't where I wanted to live permanently), moving out of the house I rented with an ex-friend (be careful living with friends), moving out of my folks house that I was caretaker of when they were away for a year, finally ending up in a rental that I had until around 27. The only truly voluntary move was leaving home when I was eighteen, the rest had some degree of forced move, albeit some like renting my parents' house from them while they were away it was expected that I would move out when the time came.
From 25 to 35 I moved twice. Once out of the rental into my fiancee's house a couple weeks prior to getting married, and then five years later when we moved into a bigger house after the housing market crashed and we could get a whole lot of house for the money. Obviously both voluntary, but moving almost literally every five years kind of fits perfectly into that 20% of people moving every year, if everyone moved every five years. Statistically dead even on the line.
Why would people want to move often, especially as one reaches the top of the age range? People tend to acquire more stuff. They tend to find that their friendships are cemented. For women, per the CDC, the average age of first child is 25, and moving with children isn't exactly pleasant for anyone either. For someone to want to move after they've reached a degree of pleasant stability usually means they're able to significantly improve their station (like their career is strong and they can afford to go someplace much nicer) or they're forced to move because of some negative, either problems with work or problems with the neighborhood itself. Moving just for its own sake doesn't generally make a whole lot of sense for most people.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
you aren't the first people to think that in your 20's. then the 40s hit and it's like that Picard line from Star Trek. "I've realized there are fewer days ahead than there are behind"
Freedom in America is largely defined by Economic Freedom. Without the ability to obtain a disposable income, Millennials are unable to live their life on their terms. They are effectively Wage Slaves, shackled to and controlled by Debt and most of them will prove powerless to overcome that slavery. We will see the middle class die within the next decade, and with it, the rise of chronic underemployment, and the end of the nuclear family as multi-family and multi-generational households will become the new norm
There are plenty of reasons to marry and not have kids, such as saving on taxes, insurance, or even just making sure someone has the authority to make medical decisions if something should happen to you.
House prices always rise faster than wages.
It's otherwise more expensive to live now than it used to be because people purchase so many more subscription services. Cable TV. Cable Internet. Cell Phone Plan. Netflix. Amazon Prime. People also purchase a lot of expensive toys or appliances too.
Growing up in the eighties, we had one subscription service beyond basic utilities, and that was the telephone. No cable TV, no Internet access. We had many fewer electric-using appliances, so the electric bill was probably no worse even accounting for the inefficient appliances. My parents did most of the remodelling themselves despite his career in MIS and a decent income. Hobbies we as children were encouraged to persue used inexpensive materials and took a lot of time, like model building. Our toys were generally durable and didn't need more than occasional add-ons from time to time.
Contrast to now where everyone in the family has the cell phone. The Internet bill and cable TV bill are steep. The toys are all electronic and all over a C-note. And people buy $5 coffees daily.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
My wife and I make over $100k together and we can't yet afford a 2b/2ba condo in Orange County, CA within a 30 minute commute to work. That kind of place with a garage goes for ~$500k. Thus, if you don't want PMI, you need to have $100k in cash on hand PLUS financial buffer and moving costs. So we rent. We pay ~$1,845/mo for our 1b/1ba. And there's a catch-- lease renewal increases are around $50, but the increase is lower than the ~$90/mo annual market rental increase over the last few years. So, if you want to move, you're almost guaranteed to be moving into a more expensive apartment.
And there still isn't any inventory to buy. There are too many people buying to turn around and immediately rent out those places.
So, despite out income and despite our savings, we're staying put.
The BIGGEST problem in the US is the over-regulation of residential building in the most productive cities that keeps the housing supply artificially low.
In the study "Why Do Cities Matter? Local Growth and Aggregate Growth", the authors show that lowering regulatory constraints on housing in high productivity cities like New York, San Francisco and San Jose to the level of the median city would expand their work force and increase U.S. GDP by 9.5%. That is three or more years of current economic growth rates "for free".
Increasing density in these cities is simple. For example, see these reasonable designs for enhanced density while maintaining green space and livability. You don't have to be like Toronto with 37 residential towers over 46 stories. You can achieve a density of 100,000 people per square mile using a mix of buildings up to 8 stories tall.
To see how screwed-up things have become, 40% of buildings in Manhattan would be illegal to build today, because of height, too many residential units, or too much mixed-use between residential and commercial.
More people living in the most productive cities will also increase the tax bases there, allowing for more investment in transport, education, etc. However transport needs would decline (or at least stay the same) if most new residents live inside these cities instead of the distant exurbs.
with the exception of increasing the size of compliance departments at all banks.
The reason the housing bubble occurred was a failure of two government regulatory bodies OTS and the SEC.
OTS should have never allowed the lax loan underwriting to occur, and the SEC should have never let banks and wall street securitize the crappy loans.
Dodd-Frank wasn't needed to prevent the disaster - competent regulators were needed.
I've been trying to move to CA from the Midwest for years now (my wife's family is in CA and she needs to take care of an aging parent), but it's tough since no company is willing to pay for a move unless you have a very specific skill they're looking for that they can't find locally (I'm very good at my job, but I'm nothing special as far as skills go). Trying to interview long distance is also difficult, even with things like Skype (assuming they even will do it). Our current options appear to be either A. Blow our life savings on a move across country and hope I can get a job before we go broke, or B. Find a company that is willing to hire long distance and hope they don't decide to lay me off before our finances recover from the move. As much as my wife wants to be back in CA, she won't risk our future on it.
I've always been curious about how people are able to jump from one side of the country to the other and support themselves with no problems. Maybe it's because the people who do it are usually young with no real possessions to weigh them down? At my age (40), the risks start outweighing the benefits in many cases.
Are there other jobs available for them if they do move and you decide you don't need them? Comparable jobs?
Moving is a large investment. And usually a long-term one, given the cost and the hassle factor. If the conditions aren't good for long-term in your area, don't complain if you can't get folks to move there.
That is all.
That is true. I also differ than most Millennials in that I have worked for the same company, a school district, since I could work. I make decent money, but what is even better, I have a pension plan and am able to retire with over 30 years at age 50. We just have too many people moving here. There are a ton from California and Texas. A lot of them are here for the weed. No lie. There is one area of town where there are 15+ pot shops in a single mile. Legalize it in the US and have everyone stay where they are. And forget about trying to go skiing on the weekends, It takes a good 3 hours to get to the closest resort because of the traffic. And that is if you leave by 5:30 or 6 am. It used to take 90 min at most. I'm rambling here. I feel like an old man "Get off my lawn, ya damn hippies!"
I have had a 270 sqft apartment for most of my life.
I came across a YouTube video of a 82sft apartment in Tokyo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYVJbupG3Xg
I never really got why apartments have to be larger than they really have to be.
After my father passed away and 99.9% of what he owned got tossed out, I started tossing out the clutter in my life. That was five years ago. I could probably move into a smaller studio apartment (200-sft or less).
Being married does not save on taxes.
Not by itself, but there are plenty of opportunities for tax savings, such as-
Low-income + high income salary averaging out to a slightly lower tax rate overall
Low-income partner can take more advantage of Roth retirement plans, maxxing out their plan (up to either the maximum yearly limits, or their own salary, whichever is less).
1 tax return instead of 2, savings on filing costs and time
Transfer of assets tax-free upon the death of one partner in 99% of cases
Benefit shopping between 2 employers, can be used to lower taxes in some cases etc
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Being married does not save on taxes.
It does compared to being divorced and paying extortion money via child support to an ex that refuses to work...
heh, ask me how I know.
And before someone says something about the CS comment, I have my kids half the time, but I bear vastly over half their expenses, even after 4 years where their other parent could have gained meaningful employment with the 6! (4x 4.0 AS, 2x 4.0 BS) degrees they have.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Not my experience. As a millenial, I've been working since I was 16, I've always showed up on time and worked my ass off. Today I'm a successful R&D scientist in a rapidly growing company. If millenials have anyone to blame, it is themselves and the barrage of the media telling them how and why they'll never make it.
It means, that they're still living at Mommy and Daddy's house, waiting for the world to give them the high paying dream job they "deserve" and would enjoy doing.....and it ain't happening.
Previous generations understood this, but apparently the snowflakes do not.
I'll stop you right there...
The previous generation don't understand how much of their success is built upon luck and the generation before them, they tend to be biased in attributing all of their good fortune to their own hard work - because that's human nature, when you're down it's bad luck (Gen-Y), when things are going your way it's all you (Gen-X). In truth it's a combination, but you can't have the hard work without first having a substantial amount of luck, even if that just means being born at the right time and in the right place, the concept of being completely self made is wrong... by all means try it, go out into the desert with nothing and see how far you get, YOU are dependant upon the system, the system was kind to you.
You are either part of that generation or a lucky outlier... either way shut the fuck up or we will rob you of all your luck including any hard work built upon it and then you will finally be more humble when looking upon those without a foundation to build their life.
Sex? Has anyone mentioned sex yet? Oh wait, I forgot where I was for a minute...
In 1977, the median income for a 30-year-old man was about $10,000, or $41,500 adjusted for inflation [1]. Today, the median income for a 30-year-old man is about $35,000 [1]. The median home sale price in 1977 was about $49,000, or $203,000 inflation-adjusted [2]. The median home sale price today is about $325,000 [2]. In 1977, a 4-year college degree at an in-state, public institution cost less than $4,000, or about $16,000 inflation-adjusted for tuition and fees [3]. Today, that's $38,600.
These are only a few rough indicators, but the point is this: a millennial or gen-xer today makes 84% in real terms of what his counterpart did in 1977; his education costs more than twice as much and has gone from something he could pay for completely with a summer job to more than a full year's salary; the house he's looking at has gone from 4 years' salary to nearly 10 years', and a 20% down payment has gone from about 3 months' salary to about two years'.
These, for example, are reasons that millennials have it tougher than previous generations.
[1] https://cps.ipums.org/cps/
[2] https://www.census.gov/const/u...
[3] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/d...
[4] http://www.collegedata.com/cs/...
Living together (common-law marriage) grants you all the same benefits but on tax day you get to claim your individual deductibles. Additionally, lower income partners could qualify for food stamps and all sorts of government aid while if you're married your combined income usually puts you over the limits. Obviously if you have a partner without income, then you qualify for all sorts of additional tax breaks if you claim them as dependent.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Anyone that has kids has pretty much forfeited their ticket to the good life.
I counter your assertion with the opposite: Anyone who doesn't have kids has forfeited the greatest experiences life has to offer.
I've raised (or am still raising) four kids. The youngest is 15, the oldest 23. They're not perfect kids, by any means. Being a parent has been -- by far -- the most challenging thing I've ever done, and I think I've done some hard things. It's also simultaneously the most heartbreaking and most incredibly rewarding. There's a lot of truth in the idea that the deepest joy to be found in life comes from serving others, and there is no deeper, more thorough, more enduring or more dedicated service than that a parent gives to a child. I don't think the biological link has anything to do with it, either; raising an adopted baby to adulthood would be the same (I didn't do that, but I know several who did raise both biological and adopted children).
What it's about is caring for another human being from the time they're completely helpless until the time they can become independent and succeed on their own, and on their own terms. It's about loving them and building a unique and very human bond. And when I say "unique", I mean that it's different for every parent and child. My relationship with each of my children is very different, because they are very different people. It's about living through their heartbreaks and joys, their failures and victories, and supporting and encouraging them through it all. It's also about teaching them the ways of the world, and about right and wrong and good and bad.
Oh, life certainly has a lot to offer those who don't have children. I've been economically successful enough that my wife and I do a lot of the things that DINKs do and enjoy. We do have the "good life". We have hobbies, we travel and we have nice things, and all of those are good.
But all of those experiences are... shallow. Nothing like the challenges and joys of raising children. I make enough money that I didn't really have to choose, but if I did, knowing what I do, I'd take the kids and give the "good life" a pass.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Moving is often an expensive and disruptive thing to do, and there are risks associated with moving to a place far away from other job options. Maybe you're a great employer, but are you the only great employer in the area? If so, it's only sensible to move to work for you if it's easy to move if you go out of business / downsize / etc. That means buying a home near you isn't a great idea, and having a spouse quit his or her job to go along with the move isn't so smart either.
My wife and I are both professionals at about the same income tier in industries with a lot of hiring overlap. If I get a nice job offer somewhere far away, I can't just go home and tell the little lady to quit her job because we're moving somewhere for mine. And unless the offer is truly great, we can't just make the leap and assume she'll find an equally good job after we move. We pretty much have to plan this stuff out together or stay where we are, which is why we're paying more to live in a place with a lot of job opportunities in a lot of directions nearby. We can change jobs without selling our house or dragging the other person through the job hunting process.
The days of, "drop everything and move for a new job" had more single income households that could devote all of their planning energy to optimizing for that one job. And even then, moving for work tended to be moving from a low population area with few employers to a higher population area with more employers.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
In 1977, the median income for a 30-year-old man was about $10,000, or $41,500 adjusted for inflation. Today, the median income for a 30-year-old man is about $35,000
What is the median years of experience for both years? In 1977, a larger percentage of the workforce did not attend college so they would have have had more years to build up experience and pay raises. Going to college will increase your overall lifetime compensation but that is weighted more heavily in the later years, your overall compensation in your 20's will often be lower than someone who went to work directly out of high school. The median age for graduating with a bachelor's degree has also gone up, so that will affect your statistics as well. If someone went to college until they were 26 then it is highly likely that they wouldn't make as much as their peers by age 30, particularly if they studied a major that isn't very marketable. Overall, wages have risen in the last 40 years, although not at the rate of productivity increases.
The median home sale price in 1977 was about $49,000, or $203,000 inflation-adjusted. The median home sale price today is about $325,000
I don't have numbers for 1977, but this article says that the median square footage of homes has gone up over 1000 square feet between 1973 and 2013 and with the lower median household size the living space per person has doubled. The median price per square foot has stayed pretty stable in the last 40 years. If you want the price they were paying in 1977, simply buy the size of house they were buying in 1977.
In 1977, a 4-year college degree at an in-state, public institution cost less than $4,000, or about $16,000 inflation-adjusted for tuition and fees. Today, that's $38,600.
This is the only expense you cited that appears to actually have changed much and it's primarily changed for 3 reasons: easier availability of money (student loans), cutbacks in budgets for state universities and greater demand. I think it's silly for an 18 year old to borrow that kind of money, but it is even more silly to loan that kind of money to 18 year olds. I think the solution to this problem is pretty clear, make student loans dischargable in bankruptcy. This would force lenders to actually evaluate the loan and the likelyhood of repayment instead of just approving anyone who says they need money. The people who are not able to get loans can go to college the old-fashioned way: grants (for the truly needy), scholarships, and work.
Overall, millennials are not as disadvantaged as they think they are. Yes, there are some obstacles to overcome but every generation has had its obstacles.
Enigma
It means, that they're still living at Mommy and Daddy's house, waiting for the world to give them the high paying dream job they "deserve" and would enjoy doing.....and it ain't happening.
Previous generations understood this, but apparently the snowflakes do not.
I'll stop you right there...
The previous generation don't understand how much of their success is built upon luck and the generation before them, they tend to be biased in attributing all of their good fortune to their own hard work - because that's human nature, when you're down it's bad luck (Gen-Y), when things are going your way it's all you (Gen-X).
Stopping you right here...
In truth it's a combination, but you can't have the hard work without first having a substantial amount of luck,
Sure you can. It's called your grades in school. It's called not allowing your kids to be put on drugs to keep them in their seats because the teacher can't take them out for recess to run off the excess energy (yeah, not Gen-Y's fault on that one). It's call doing your best regardless of the circumstances around you, and having a strong work ethic.
Sadly, BabyBoomer/Gen-Xer's didn't generally do their Gen-Y/Millennial kids any favors with the "everyone gets a trophy" and "my kid can do no wrong" and "1+1 = 3, yeah - you tried; here's a lollipop" up-bringing.
But that doesn't leave it any less on Millennials/Gen-Y to do their best and put their head down and do the job(s) they've been given/hired to do. How you treat one employer will be picked up on your interviews in the future. So yes - it is ultimately in your hands, even if your parents didn't help you much.
even if that just means being born at the right time and in the right place,
Being able to do certain things, make certain kinds of advancements does have a link to being in the right place at the right time; but it also has to do with the attitude you have when you're there. If you don't have the "can do" attitude, then those around you won't offer you those prime choices, or you won't put yourself in situations where you can even be given those choices.
You can't start a business and not advertise it, and expect money to come in from no where. You have to get out and do the hard work - get out in the business community and make your name known; find VC's and Angel Investors and convince them you have the wherewithal to "do what you say and say what you do" and make them money. And that starts by showing your boss at McD's or Arbie's or some retail shop that you can be trusted, and not goof off; that you can handle responsibility - that in turn, becomes a good reference for your *next* job wherever it may be, and that builds up over time.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
There are only 7 states that recongize common law marriage (http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/common-law-marriage.aspx). If you don't live in:
Colorado
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
then you might want to have a contract in place if you plan to take advantage of the benefits of marriage, and there are quite a few. Even if you do live in those states, many of them only recognize common law marriage if you actively advertise your relationship status as married.
It means, that they're still living at Mommy and Daddy's house, waiting for the world to give them the high paying dream job they "deserve" and would enjoy doing.....and it ain't happening.
Previous generations understood this, but apparently the snowflakes do not.
I'll stop you right there...
The previous generation don't understand how much of their success is built upon luck and the generation before them, they tend to be biased in attributing all of their good fortune to their own hard work - because that's human nature, when you're down it's bad luck (Gen-Y), when things are going your way it's all you (Gen-X).
Stopping you right here...
In truth it's a combination, but you can't have the hard work without first having a substantial amount of luck,
Sure you can. It's called your grades in school. It's called not allowing your kids to be put on drugs to keep them in their seats because the teacher can't take them out for recess to run off the excess energy (yeah, not Gen-Y's fault on that one). It's call doing your best regardless of the circumstances around you, and having a strong work ethic. Sadly, BabyBoomer/Gen-Xer's didn't generally do their Gen-Y/Millennial kids any favors with the "everyone gets a trophy" and "my kid can do no wrong" and "1+1 = 3, yeah - you tried; here's a lollipop" up-bringing. But that doesn't leave it any less on Millennials/Gen-Y to do their best and put their head down and do the job(s) they've been given/hired to do. How you treat one employer will be picked up on your interviews in the future. So yes - it is ultimately in your hands, even if your parents didn't help you much.
You want the scary part? Pretty much every single bit of research in the social sciences on the upbringing basically says that you couldn't intentionally raise kids to be little narcissistic bullies better, with serious issues with society if they manage to not end up that way because it turns out that humans are not only pretty good at detecting false & empty praise, we're in general hardwired to be not very fond of it.
This research is about as old as me, and I'm in the older segment of the Millennial generation. This should tell you all you need to know about the halflife of pseudoscience in the educational system...