What Happens When a Whole Generation Never Grows Up?

https://www.wsj.com/economy/what-happens-when-a-whole-generation-never-grows-up-d200e9ef

10 19 2 years ago

Mirror without Paywall: https://archive.is/6kBWh

mrkeen• 2 years ago

The conventional explanation for what’s freezing young adults in place is that they can’t afford to grow up, given rising inflation and ballooning housing costs. Yet this doesn’t quite explain what’s going on.
Median wages for full-time workers ages 35 to 44 are up 16% between 2000 and 2024, from $58,522 to $67,652 adjusted for inflation

- 2024 Median house price $402k

- 2000 Median house price $119k (or $216k in 2024 inflated dollars)

16% wage bump for a near-doubling of house prices? It seems like maybe the simplest explanation was right.

Terr_• 2 years ago

As much as I prefer median over average for income discussions, it's worth noting that either half could get substantially worse/better without a detectable change in the median.

Hence the popularity of comparing distributions by using quintiles or quartiles.

staori13• 2 years ago

First off, your numbers are wildly off. Median Price in 2000 for both new homes and existing homes was well over $150,000 nominal (some data has existing close to 200).

That whole premise significantly misleading though. The median size of a single family home in 2000 was over 300(!)sqft smaller than the median size of a sfh in 2023. In the same period relative property tax outlays (pegged to constant valuation) have decreased. The housing market is in undeniably a bad spot, but median price vs median wage is such a misleading metric given how little of the picture it really provides.

Every 20 something parrots the "myth" that their parents could buy a house for say $70,000 or something vs $400,000 now. That myth is just false and lazy. In 1984 the median home price was approximately $90,000 nominal (rising to over $230,000 in 08, a similar increase as '00-'24) and the average interest rate was 13.88%. In 2024 those numbers were $400,000~ and 6.8%.

On an equivlent 30-y bill that works out to the following

- 2024 ($400,000/6.8%): $2405 (Nominal), $2405 (Real)

- 1984 ($90,000/13.8%): $1072 (Nominal), *$3246 (Real)*

Shockingly real prices of homeownership are cheaper in 2024 than in 1984. Tax & insurance rates have risen notably in that time so that full all-in difference is more marginal than the $841 here, but its still a remarkably counter-intuative fact. Only difference is in 2024 much more of our money goes into equity, while in the 80s and 90s it went to the bank.

black_13• 2 years ago

The Wall Street Journal's framing exemplifies how establishment media obscures systematic dismantling of public goods while blaming individuals. Their narrative of "outsized expectations" conveniently ignores that their editorial page championed policies creating this crisis: deregulation, union-busting, and tax cuts that gutted public investment.

The "conventional path to adulthood" they reference required massive public investment - the GI Bill, FHA loans, strong labor protections - which WSJ consistently opposed. Now they blame millennials for failing to thrive in the hostile economic environment their ideology created.

The article's focus on individual choices ("high expectations," "choosing less traditional paths") deflects from the core issue: the deliberate dismantling of public goods and social safety nets that made the postwar prosperity possible. When 30-somethings say "instructions don't work anymore," they're describing the collapse of institutional supports, not personal failure.

The WSJ's perspective represents the interests that profited from privatizing public goods while downloading risk onto individuals. Their "tough economic luck" framing obscures how these outcomes were policy choices, not accidents.

fargle• 2 years ago

"When he couldn’t put his double major in English and history to use"

"I’m sick of partying. I did that already."

whether or not you are right about the impact of policy choices, you still can't ignore personal responsibility as well. if you party your way through school to get a useless degree, then double down for a law degree you don't (or can't) use for unspecified reasons, i don't see how any policy is going to have a different outcome.

the idea that if all you did was get a college degree, didn't matter in what, and you were on "easy street" hasn't been true for at least 30 years before he graduated, probably never was.

travisporter2• 2 years ago

Really harsh calling it a useless degree (even though I don’t disagree) but expectations should be in order. Hell, even Harvard MBA is 200k+ in the hole, so without a plan afterwards it may not be the best choice.

If he wanted to work in academia I think it’s a very reasonable choice.

tokioyoyo2• 2 years ago

If about ~30% of people are experiencing the same problem, I'd say ignoring the "personal responsibility" part of the equation is valid. At some point of progress, we did something wrong, but not a single country can figure out what that wrong thing was, and how we can revert it.

Frankly, I think these opinion-lite pieces come from the problem how we have moved on from having unified culture and trend setters. Everyone has so many options, possible hobbies, interests and etc. to explore that conventionalism is frowned upon. Even if individualism has been promoted in North America for the past century, there was still things most people agreed on. We just don't have that over here anymore. And nowadays, almost nowhere. Committing to something or someone results in bigger opportunity losses than ever before, so ever chasing the dopamine rush from trying new things is more acceptable than ever.

I don't even know if it's right or wrong. I'm morally conflicted when I think about it. Same as having multiple kids, these topics will only come up more and more as literally every country is diving further into plummeting fertility rates.

matrix872• 2 years ago

I mean Europe has more of the type of policy that you describe, there's still the same drop in birthrates

(Not disagreeing with you that the WSJ is evil, but I doubt throwing money at people will make them have more kids at this point)

cafard• 2 years ago

They develop gray hair and a paunch, and settle in to write opinion pieces about the immaturity of their juniors. (Boomer speaking.)

matrix872• 2 years ago

Side question, why does anyone subscribe to the WSJ in the first place? Who's doing this? It just seems like a propaganda outlet

Every time I read something written in the WSJ, I wish I could un-read it because it deliberately tries to mislead people

hesdhonch19872• 2 years ago

It’s the most middle of the road news source in the country.

hesdhonch19872• 2 years ago

The WSJ is 100% correct. If Anyone who doesn’t realize that the social safety net today is roughly twice the size it was in 1970 as a % of GDP, and about 60 TIMES in absolute, then they shouldn’t be posting nonsense here. The reality is that the baby boomers began the process of household formation with FAR less support and far less labor protection than today’s millennials.

travisporter2• 2 years ago

But is this per capita? GDP and population are not necessarily linear

What Happens When a Whole Generation Never Grows Up?

Related Stories