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.
Millenials aren't actually lazy, they're getting paid stagnant rates and the money supply has increased. Inflation happens and spending power has gone down as a result. The same or greater productivity is expected and "kids these days" aren't the ones seeing the benefit of it.
This isn't even news. Gone are the days when a part time summer job is enough for that year's college tuition. A part time job might barely cover rent any more. And you can forget about having a savings account without at least one full time job and a part time job on the side.
Employers are offering fewer and fewer long term incentives, which results in lower employee loyalty in return.
It's not a mystery, it's not a secret. It's the economy, stupid.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
There is so much erroneous crap around the Social Security trust fund.
First, the trust fund really got it's start after the Greenspan Commission finished in 1983. Before that, Social Security basically did not have a trust fund. It was more-or-less spending everything that came in, as designed.
This broke down when GenX was much smaller than the Baby Boomers. There would not be enough money coming in from GenX and what would be called the Millennials to pay for the Boomer's retirement.
The Greenspan Commission's solution was to increase Social Security taxes so that Boomers and GenX built up a large trust fund which would pay for the Boomer's retirement.
The trust fund was never intended to be permanent. It was always supposed to be spent by the time the Boomers die. We're on-track for that, and the fact that the trust fund will be depleted around the time that the Boomers have died off means everything is working to plan.
The trust fund has always been invested in special US Government bonds. There were not new, special bonds created later by some president you hate to "loot" the trust fund. There was never any cash to loot.
The government can not default on only these bonds. If the government defaulted on these bonds, that would make all US government bonds be considered worthless. Because if you break a promise to one bondholder, no other bondholder can trust you to keep your promise to them. Even if Mitch McConnell pinky-swears.
The money is not "gone". It was never a big bank vault full of cash. It has always been invested into special US government bonds.
The debt does not "come due" at some specific point in the future where it all suddenly has to be paid back. Each bond has their own maturity date, and a constant stream of bonds are "coming due" at any particular time.
It was never "your money". Social Security is not a savings plan. You don't have a pile of cash with your name on it. The money you paid went into the pool that paid current retirees (or the trust fund to pay current retirees later). When you retire, people younger than you will be paying you. This is a good thing for the majority of people, because you will be paid significantly more than you paid in, including interest on that money.
No, you can not accomplish the same thing with a 401k with "safe" investments. It will not make enough money, because the return on safe investments is terrible.
We now return to your regularly scheduled lying about Social Security so that you blindly follow attempts to end it.