I think this comment represents a fundamental disconnect in cultures. The days of people "wanting" overtime are kind of gone. If I saw "overtime pay" on a job description all I am seeing is "work long hours, never see your kids, no time for hobbies, etc".
Maybe that translates to me "not wanting to work", but that's the situation.
That option is still there today, to work only enough to sustain oneself at a lowered standard. But it seems that there is a part of the millennial/gen-Z culture that expects ass-busting outcomes without the busting of the ass.
Perhaps. But one only needs to look up to the original post to see that is not what we're talking about here. Busting of the ass for $25-30/hr plus overtime...not exactly getting wealthy here.
It's not "fly to Paris on a whim"-level wealthy, but it sounds like a life well lived to me. What is your definition of wealthy?
We can all agree that we have different definitions of wealthy. But I think we can also all agree that your description of that life, which is maybe "well-lived", is not one of wealth in the context of this discussion. It is certainly not an "ass-busting outcome".
What makes you say that this middle-class life where you own your home free and clear and have time and money for the occasional indulgences of life is a "basic" one? In other words, why is your bar calibrated so high?
Granted, for the equivalent of $100k you could maybe erect a 1100sq ft house at best, but that's because prices exploded due to the pandemic and Russian invasion.
And yea obviously wealth is relative. But to anyone accustomed to living in a reasonably developed country what you’re describing is not wealthy. We both know this. Not sure why you continue doubling down.
I want to know what that something is, in what way it should be different, and why you think that difference will lead to the difference in outcomes you anticipate.
My original response was about how “kids these days” expect “ass busting results without the ass busting”, and I was pointing out that that is definitely not the case with OP’s job offer of $25-30/hr plus overtime, which is the exact opposite…ass busting without the results.
But if you must, Let’s say somewhere in the top 50% of asset holders is a reasonable line for “wealth”. Do with that whatever you like.
Among households that hold at least one asset, to filter out those who don't own anything, the median sits at $228k. Again, that's a nice home in a modest area or a modest home in a nice area, even before the recent real estate craze. Or from another perspective, someone making $60k a year (full-time employment at $25-30 an hour with no raises ever, which is an unreasonable assumption) who works for 40 years and manages a slightly above-average (remember, ass-busting) savings rate[1] of 10% will have that by the end of their career. We can conservatively assume that by investing their savings in a broad-market index fund they can at least match inflation.
Which is to say, entering the top 50% of asset holders from below is by no means unreasonable even for someone who isn't making a cushy $400k a year working at a FAANG. It just won't be overnight and it will take some amount of busting ass.
Your perception of how wealthy the median person (or asset-holder) is may be skewed by what you observe in a presumably very wealthy location.
[0]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf20.pdf
Even the "$100k" house your example uses does not get you to the median (you don't get to casually add 20%+ to the house value just to get to the median). And you're, again, still living in a tiny house in the poorest areas with the worst amenities, the worst healthcare, the worst education, the worst economic prospects for your children, the worst obesity, the worst of the opioid epidemic, etc, effectively zero disposable income, zero college savings, zero travel, crappy old used cars, thrift shop clothing, pinching every penny just to pay down your mortgage quickly and get to the 40-45th percentile of wealth statistically. Worth it? Not for me.
It's a perfectly "fine" life, if that's what you want. It does not meet a reasonable definition of wealth in the US.
You can stop any time.
15 years ago it might not have been so bad. But now you would get a run down shack on a tiny plot of land and you are living in a poor as hell area deep in the sticks where the nearest store besides walmart or dollar tree is minimum 60 miles away and your only choice for internet is 4G wireless that is shoddy going through all the trees.
Your area seems to have a particularly disadvantaged income to home value ratio. Is there some other factor involved? From what I understand parts of Montana, for example, are like that, where there is no economic base to support higher wages but nonetheless the natural beauty of the area drives up home prices from out-of-town buying and whatnot.
I think the number of people who become "wealthy" due to salary income alone is probably small and shrinking. You used to be able to buy a house in 12 months instead of 18 months if you worked overtime. Todays economics make it so working overtime lets you buy a house in 13 years instead of 17 years.
Actually, if 50 years ago you used to be able to pay for a house in 18 months, today you should be able to pay for a house in ~30 months: https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-inco.... You're thinking of a time that didn't exist, perhaps outside of when people were granted plots of land and built their own houses on it.
Blame the Fed and idiotic policies at every level for that, anyway; the economics of housing is totally skewed by artificial scarcity on one hand and asset inflation on the other.
I don't disagree that capital has more power now due to the effects of technology, but I also believe that culture has been shaping away from the idea that we are masters of our fate; both due to technology, which becomes increasingly harder for laypeople to understand as it gets more advanced, and regulation forced by that technological advance, where the universe of economic activity one can engage in without needing the state's permission is getting smaller and smaller. Not to mention all the effects that social media has on envy.
Perhaps I sound like I'm repeating the age-old mantra of the old complaining that the young are ruining the country ;-) you decide.
Inflation only accounts for 12x since 1950.
I think "median' might be adding some error to your analysis: I suspect skilled trades were probably earning more relative to median in 1950 than today's skilled trades earn relative to today's median. But wasn't able to find good historical numbers with a quick search.
Compared to the median tradesmen salary it has not kept up to inflation: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472061.htm
But to be quite honest, those are exact comparisons, but it was what I found in like 5 minutes.
Many of these policies were voted in at the local level by the populace. It isn't the government's fault if every city counsel member who supports upzoning loses their next election.
But we're still full of idiots who think sacrificing your twenties to never see the sun is going to make the rest of their life easy, instead of full of health concerns. And divorce.