Hacker News Reader

Comment by thewebguyd | Hacker News Reader

> So you read nothing about how graduates during 2008 pretty much had forever stunted careers?

Myself included. Graduated in '08, had to work various minimum wage jobs in retail for several years because no one was hiring. I'm just now at a point in my career, nearing 40, where I should have been at 28.

Degree doesn't matter much when your only work experience is 5 years of working at Starbucks, and you barely have personal projects because you're too busy working 2 jobs to just to survive.

Those of us who suffered through that time period barely recovered, and many didn't recover at all. It shaped an entire generation.

View on HN

I'm a little older but I have found it strange how well economic crisis has been almost wiped from our collective memories

it was a horrible period and I have many friends who are in the same boat especially those not in software

It’s because the site is chalk full of millennials who jumped on the “I was an office assistant making $40k and I did a bootcamp and now make 200k” at the right place at just the right time.

They’re convinced they’ll time the next grift right. Who knows

I think it is wiped from memories because it very specifically affected one or two years of college graduates (that had the experience the parent comment mentioned). Not an entire generation. The data shows millennials as a whole are better off than boomers were at their age.

> The data shows millennials as a whole are better off than boomers were at their age.

Perhaps true if you go east far enough, seems objectively wrong for the majority of the west though. Honest question, if you think this and it isn't just rage bait.. what data supports it? Scott Galloway disagrees and offers hard data, and goes as far as calling it intergenerational theft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E

> Perhaps true if you go east far enough, seems objectively wrong for the majority of the west though.

Much of the (American) millennials generation believes a story that they’re worse off. I feel it is a convenient story for people to tell themselves and blame someone else for their perceived losses. But I pulled up several articles supporting my claim with a quick search, even though the opposite narrative is more widespread.

Example article about how inflation adjusted net worth is higher for millennials than it was for boomers at the same age:

https://www.newsweek.com/millennials-financially-better-off-...

Galloway isn’t necessarily wrong in the individual data points he raises. But if you look at the sum of all of the factors - higher rents, more student debt, etc but also the positive things - the net worth in the end is higher for millennials. And remember this is inflation adjusted already.

The numbers that interest me are comparing home ownership rates at various ages between the generational groups

Lots of research shows about a 8-10% gap, that only at very specific ages finally achieved parity.

The consequence of this is a difference in wealth building, economic security, and family planning for millions.

To add to that, an unemployed 28 year old living with his parents in the house that they own is a "homeowner" in most of these homeowner stats.

Why does home ownership on its own matter? Net worth is inclusive of housing and assets and debt. And net worth is a direct measure of the wealth that is being built.

Because homes are pretty much the only asset a millenial would have at that time that would have grown over time. a 08-9 graducate wouldn't really have much money to spar for stocks unless they made really lucky bets or happened to mine a fewbitcoin they forgot about.

Most all else would have inflated or depreciated.

401k and IRAs is where millennials should have their stocks and those have done very well over the years. There is little point in stocks elsewhere (unless you are very rich) since stocks are for long term investments and those two cover the retirement needs of nearly everyone (except the very rich), and there are few other savings needs people might have that stocks qualify for.

Remember you won't live forever (at least not to current medical knowledge, you can bet otherwise if you want), and you can't take it with you (according to most religions). Thus once you have retirement covered and emergency savings you should be spending everything you earn. You should have enough money left at the end of the month to afford the things you buy at the end of the month, but there is no point in any more, enjoy life with what you earn. (donating to charity counts as enjoying life!)

Someone posted this already but a more useful "net worth" is how big of a shock can take without paying multiples on the sticker price.

And even homes are now sieving into institutional buyers.

https://medium.com/newco/your-financial-shock-wealth-4845e6d...

Net worth is a funny metric.

Joe has a 300k house with 100k equity and 200k mortgage. He has 100k in stocks in a 401k. Net worth negative 100k.

Pete has $300 in his cheques account, and isn't eligible for loans or mortgage. Net worth positive $300

Obviously Joe is richer than Pete though.

Most people would consider Joe's networth to be $200k.

> Obviously Joe is richer than Pete though.

Yeah, because Joe’s net worth is $200,000 and Pete’s is $300

House equity = current value - mortgage balance

You subtracted the mortgage twice, so your math is off by $200,000.00

Substitute some numbers until the example makes sense, the point is that net worth can be misleading.

Joe is on the hook for his mortgage and so his monthly cashflow must be higher to afford to live. However his net worth is larger and so he is richer.

This is why middle class people often feel poor than those who are poor: they make more money and have more in total, but they also have large bills and if something happens those bills will catch up with them fast.

And that is the interesting part - for a given sudden bill of a certain size, someone more wealthy on paper can have much worse outcomes.

This feels like one of those PEMDAS posts on facebook where everyone comes to different results and argues endlessly about it. So let me add my 2¢:

if you have 100K in equity and owe 200K on your mortgage, then you’re net -100K on your house

that combines with the 100K in the retirement account to produce a net worth of $0

Where is my mistake?

Net worth isn't equity - mortgage + 401k. Net worth is assets - liabilities. Equity is not an asset; the house is. So is the 401k. The mortgage is a liability. So Joe's net worth is 100k (IRA) + 300k (value of house) - 200k (mortgage) = 200k positive net worth.

(Another way of thinking about equity, specifically, is it is the real estate contribution to net worth, because it is what is left when you subtract the real estate liability (mortgage) from the real estate asset (value of house). That's why you shouldn't subtract the mortgage from the equity: equity is what's left after you've already subtracted the mortgage.)

(Edit: Adjusted sign in first equation to subtract mortgage. It's probably more technically accurate to keep it as addition and consider the mortgage to be a negative value, but I believe it's more straightforward and intuitive for most people as it is now represented.)

Joe’s net worth is $200k. Why on earth would you value the home at $0?

Net worth = assets - liabilities

As a thought experiment would you not feel (much) poorer if houses suddenly cost >$5 million tomorrow and you didn't own one yet? Even if everything else cost the same? Even if everything else cost the same and your net worth went up $100k?

I've read this as well, heres an economist article with a graph: https://archive.ph/Y3vvz

However, there are certainly a lot of conflicting studies and data out there. And to be honest, it doesnt feel true given how much young people complain on the internet. Its hard to see which asserion is correct. It isnt necessarily correct just because one study says its so.

People complain. Boomers conplained too back in the day - still do, but about different things.

That's the average. Please compare the median wealth (especially seeing the absurd paper wealth of crypto bro and stock influencers who are almost exclusively millennials).

[Edit] also inflation is calculated based on average consumption. So you will notice that toys, clothing and electronic devices (TVs, cooking robots), all cheaper and cheaper (due to enshitiffication and quality decrease) count more for inflation than education, cars, housing and probably a lot of other stuff a 25-35 yo care more about.

I feel like your edited-in point is glossed over FAR too often. We talk about inflation like it’s some objective measure when it’s arbitrary as f@$k and mostly only reflects what the current arbiters of inflation want it to reflect.

A great recent example was the Australian decision to add capital gains on a primary residence as a profit (ie. negative expense) when calculating inflation. All of a sudden inflation was very reasonable despite the fact that established homeowners and their families were choosing between groceries and mortgage payments… but in terms of their net worth, YAY! They’re getting ahead!

I think the average homeowner age is what, 59 now?

A lot of the data used to claim millenials are doing better off is based on nonsense like "millenials have larger TVs on average" or "millenials all have smart phones yet boomers didn't have mobile phones", or equating 1 person making 3 times the median wage and 2 people making nothing as just as good as 3 different people making median wage.

Class of 2008 here. A couple years ago a 26 year old colleague whined he made only $130,000 a year. At his age I made $17 an hour photographing tennis rackets. My sympathies were limited…

sorry your math seems strange. You graduated from college in ‘08 - 17 years ago. You’re nearing 40. So let’s say you graduated at 23 … you’ve only had a college level job for five years?

The economy has been moving upward since 2013 - 12 years ago. What were you doing from 2013 to 2020?

I ask because I also graduated around ‘08. I’ve been a software developer since 2016. I’m currently a senior dev with almost a decade of experience.

There were really crappy years to start with, but I feel I’ve made up for it substantially.

My own parents graduated in the late 70s during a terrible economic recession.

It seems weathering economic recessions have been a tradition for several generations.

I still remember articles almost identical to the ones I see now; “this generation is screwed and there is no possible salvation.”

It’s getting old.

Yeah man, those stupid hick rednecks in Appalachia should have just learned to code.

My grandparents were stupid redneck hicks from Appalachia who moved the Midwest and became wealthy and well educated.

The current VP is a stupid redneck hick from Appalachia who … you can Google him.

Point is, one way of responding to regional decline (Appalachia was once the wealthiest part of America) is to move.

I know some rednecks from Appalachia who did learn to code. He retired from IBM a few years ago (that is IBM was a different company when he worked there than it is now) to a nice retirement in his little mountain shack.

Though I wouldn't tell the rest what they should do. The guy I know had to live in MN for decades (where I met him) away from the rest of his friends and family - that is itself a large cost in lifestyle that I question if money makes up for.

> I'm just now at a point in my career, nearing 40, where I should have been at 28.

What or who is the standard for where you “should have been at 28?”

Career progression is not everything, I'm approaching 40 and I'm doing the opposite, pivoting towards what I should have been doing at 28.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com