Slashdot Mirror
Fed Says Millennials Are Just Like Their Parents. Only Poorer (bloomberg.com)
Millennials, long presumed to have less interest in the nonstop consumption of goods that underpins the American economy, might not be that different after all, a new study from the Federal Reserve says. From a report: Their spending habits are a lot like the generations that came before them, they just have less money at this point in their lives, the Fed study found. The group born between 1981 and 1997 has fallen behind because many of them came of age during the financial crisis. "We find little evidence that millennial households have tastes and preference for consumption that are lower than those of earlier generations, once the effects of age, income, and a wide range of demographic characteristics are taken into account," wrote authors Christopher Kurz, Geng Li and Daniel J. Vine.
Their findings [PDF] are grounded in an analysis of spending, income, debt, net worth, and demographic factors among different generations. The conclusion that millennials aren't all that different also holds for the researchers' more granular examination of expenditures on cars, food, and housing. "It primarily is the differences in average age and then differences in average income that explain a large and important portion of the consumption wedge between millennials and other cohorts," they conclude. So much for the young folks favoring "experiences" over tangible goods.
Their findings [PDF] are grounded in an analysis of spending, income, debt, net worth, and demographic factors among different generations. The conclusion that millennials aren't all that different also holds for the researchers' more granular examination of expenditures on cars, food, and housing. "It primarily is the differences in average age and then differences in average income that explain a large and important portion of the consumption wedge between millennials and other cohorts," they conclude. So much for the young folks favoring "experiences" over tangible goods.
Boomer made out like bandits, but 'the greatest generation' and especially their parents were the true thieves. At least the boomers and WWII gen paid something in.
Anybody who voted for FDR should be dug up, the plot resold, headstone ground flat/reinscribed and any gold fillings, wedding rings etc used to retire a tiny share of the ponzi scheme's debt.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Yes, Millennials likely have the exact same materialistic cravings as the previous generations. The concept keeping up with the Jonses is so old most Millennials probably wouldn't understand what it means even if it does describe exactly what everyone is doing.
The difference with Millennials vs. previous generations is they've been groomed to expect a lot of shit in life for free. They're electing socialists to Congress based on this very premise.
20 years ago if you wanted a website, you had to buy a domain, pay someone to host it, and design and create your own content. And that was completely acceptable because people understood and accepted the basic premise of capitalism. Generations before recognized there's no such thing as a free lunch, a concept that is almost a century old now.
Today's generation would be appalled if you asked them to pay for a website. That's called "Facebook" now. Same goes for email, image hosting, and even internet access, as not offering free WiFi in your business is now considered some kind of grave attack on basic human rights.
And yes, the younger generation DOES favor "experiences". I've met more people under the age of 30 that I'm completely jealous of because somehow they've managed to travel the world and go on more vacations that I could dream of. I say "somehow", but that's rather obvious too when you look at how absolutely broke they are all the time. This is the FOMO generation that YOLOs worries away. Saving for a rainy day? Budget and spend what you can afford? Fuck that. That's not "fun", no matter how sensible it may be.
And yes, I am generalizing. The sad part is my generalizations for the majority of the demographic I'm targeting, are accurate.
And legally bribe Congress to keep it that way, thanks to the partisan Citizens United ruling.
Urban legend. Citizens United was a bunch of guys who pooled their money to show a film critical of Hillary Clinton (if you've ever wondered why she opposes Citizens United). The SCOTUS ruled that a closely-held corporation was the same as a partnership, and thus the rights of members are preserved.
It said nothing about "corporations are people", nor did it apply to corporations in general.
The interesting question is: should the Washington Post be allowed to run a full-page story attacking Trump? Should Amazon be allowed to pay the Washington Post to run a full-page ad attacking Trump? What's the difference? It's the same guy in charge, either way. It's the same content, either way.
I'd say "no public corporation can engage in politics" and make it that simple. The NYT would need to go private, but it could. And would anyone miss Fox or CNN?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
As long as you keep aborting the children, the next generation will always be smaller.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.