Hacker News Reader

Your first paragraph is something that I, a middle-Millenial, could have written when I was 20. Fight Club, a film about young men broken by the dehumanizing nihilism of “working a job you hate to buy stuff you don’t need” (among other things) came out in 1999, and was something of a cultural bell-weather.

(I think the main difference between now and 1999 is that simply working a job you hate no longer guarantees you the ability to buy the stuff you don’t need.)

One lense that I don’t see put for often is: it’s not that GenZ is particularly poorly situated, it’s that the American Boomers, specifically, we’re the luckiest demographic cohort in world history, luckier than those who came before or after. Folks born in the 1850s might have technically been able to buy “a house” but it would not be a house that a modern person would find acceptable — plumbing, electricity, climate control, insulation, weatherproofing, fire safety, appliances and amenities, would all be abysmal by our standards. (The foundations of such houses were usually just a few big rocks.) In theory, a modern young person could build a house conforming to 1900 “average house” standards for cheap, but nobody wants such a house, and nobody builds them, and it is likely that such a house would be in violation of code. The richest person in 1900 couldn’t buy a house as good as the median US house.

So we’re in a place that our ancestors would view as a hypertech Jetsons future, except we got out over our skis for weird demographic and economic reasons and it’s currently very expensive to buy the latest hypertech magic house, and impossible to buy (what that ancestor or would call) a “normal” house.

This perspective — comparing more to any generation other than the Boomers provides a more realistic perspective.

Actually the housing types we had in abundance in the 1900s-1930s - walkable, row houses, townhouses, garden apartments, apartments over the store - are now extraordinarily premium, luxury products. The modern car-dependent high-energy-use high-amenity high-sqft stuff is cheaper!

Wrong, it's that those houses are in locations that are now the epicentre of a huge cultural and infrastructure amenity that did not even exist in the 1900s. The physical houses are not the value there, it's the location and amenities.

While the location is the same in a geographic sense as in 1900, a google maps view of that era would show them being in a small town compared to a city with incredible amenities these days.

>huge cultural and infrastructure amenity

The amenity is simply walkability. If the same mix of businesses that are spread across many square miles of ordinary suburbia were structured in the form of an old-style main street, that would be just as much of a huge cultural and infrastructure amenity.

I think this is largely correct, but it seems that few realize those extraordinarily lucky boomers have children who they will bequeath their wealth to - mostly Millenials. I can't wait to go from being the lazy slacker generation to the wealth-hording one over the next decade or two. (To be clear I think the whole generational divide is as silly and artificial as most any other.)

I think you're right and agree that it will be interesting to see how this unfolds. I have seen the meme going around about Boomers choosing to spend all their wealth on vacations of luxury cars and leaving their kids almost nothing, but I personally haven't seen this in my own sphere, and it seems mostly like a campfire scary story for Millennials. My own parents refer to their wealth as if it is my money that they are stewarding for me, despite me not actually needing it.

Basically the same here. It's gotten to the point where I have to think about how much real estate my parents own, and they're just a pair of middle class people who never cracked six figure salaries but worked diligently at decent jobs and invested where possible. I hope to never need to inherit from them, but it would be a nice to have. I certainly don't envy Millenials or Gen Z who don't have family wealth - I don't think they'll have much chance to build the legacy our parents did.

If all of this is true, then I am with you guys. Don't give up your _one and only_ life to make someone else richer.

Given the stories I've heard, and things I've myself seen, I'm not convinced it is true — not for _most_ millennials. I do hope I'm wrong though.

If you're Gen Z, your parents most likely began careers in the early 1990s, probably later than that. What careers did they have then that were such an easy piece of cake? The 1990s were not the 1950s.

> he majority just don't want to be a "good employee" for 40 years just increasing the number every quarter for shareholders.

The way to feel better about this is to also be one of the shareholders.

i think the problem is that these folks browse social media too much and reject the reality

the reality is that not everyone of them will end up rich, beautiful and famous... in fact only a tiny tiny minority will

Hard agree, it's like a diet of pure sugar - it corrupts the body or in this case the minds expectations.