‘They Are Just Pissed Off’: Scott Galloway Warns Young People Are ‘Opting Out of America’ As Older Generations Failed Them

https://lemmy.world/post/14705597

‘They Are Just Pissed Off’: Scott Galloway Warns Young People Are ‘Opting Out of America’ As Older Generations Failed Them - Lemmy.World

Oh I thought it was because they like Trump, are Russian bots, and tankies. At least if people here are to be believed.

Each successive generation has a higher income even accounting for inflation

Yeah but it doesn’t tell the whole truth, cost of living has been rising steadily as well.
Cost of living is inflation, which this chart takes into account
Sure, but inflation doesn’t factor in price hikes, for instance medical insurance, drug prices, house prices, rent, collage tuition or new expenditures that didn’t exist 20 years ago. These don’t follow the curve of inflation, they are artificialy inflated which is shown in increased profit margins.

Rent is literally a third of inflation calculation

How do you complain it doesn’t factor it when it’s the biggest contributor?

Dude, I’m not complaining I’m giving you examples of things that they don’t account for. Rent is different, you have landlords jacking the price to an extreme, and then you have those who follow the inflation curve. It’s just dishonest.
That list is wrong because they do account for it
You were proven wrong by another user, you’ve linked a graph with no sources or explanation.wjatvdo you expect?
No, the inflation literally tracks housing costs. There are valid criticisms, and there’s not knowing what you’re talking about
you are the one misleading people posting graphs with no context, sorry but you are the one who make false assumption based on the graphs you are posting.
Which false assumptions? I explain my points clearly without brushing off other people. Be specific

Repeat same talking point.

The things you say are useless, especially since these are adjusted by household size. Do one that isn’t.

Repeat same talking point.

I’m not saying I agree with them, but they are the only ones providing actual data. Everyone else, including you, is just attacking and downvoting them. I would be interested in hearing an actual argument, but to accuse them of just “repeating a talking point” while they provide data and you provide nothing but a talking point is ridiculously hypocritical.

Their data is adjusted for family size. Family size has been consistently shrinking since the 1960s, which, if you adjust their graph, will lead to overall decrease in wages throughout time. It is a meaningless method of transformation to get data that supports a false narrative.

Why did you not point out that their data is transformed when I did?

You still haven’t provided any actual data. Again, you just hand wave it away.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, I tend to believe you are right in fact, but if you can’t be arsed to actually defend your position - that’s fine - but its then hypocritical to claim the other person just repeating a talking point.

Fuck off, sea lion.
The “you’re a troll!” ad hominem Is so often the last refuge of a failed argument.
Google it, sea lion.
I suggest you take your own advice if my post is confusing to you.
That chart lacks context. The cost of living has drastically increased with each generation as well, far outpacing the increase in wages.
The cost of living is tracked by inflation, that’s what inflation is

It looks like there’s nothing I can say to make you see, but even accounting for inflation, the cost of living has been outpacing wages for decades! That’s why the average US worker in the 1950s could support a home with their wages alone, but today, two people working full-time jobs still can’t afford a home.

That’s because the cost of living has been outpacing wages.

But that’s only true in the 1970s and 1980s. In recent years wages have outpaced inflation

Why is home ownership now higher than before?

you keep reposting this shit graph even after it’s been pointed out that it’s meaningless…
Nobody actually addressed it, they just kept saying it’s bad without any argument. Why didn’t people buy homes in the 1960s?

Why didn’t people buy homes in the 1960s?

Your graph doesn’t actually show that, as that source doesn’t include the first year referenced on the x-axis. Even then, it actually shows an upwards trend into the 1970s, so I don’t even know what you’re talking about with this. How about this, why don’t you post a more recent chart from the same source shown in the bottom of the image?

What a shock, but it seems to show homeownership is trending downwards at a faster rate than in any 4-year period in the last 44 years, which contradicts the bullshit you’re trying to peddle that things are better than they’ve ever been. If the current trend holds, homeownership will be at its lowest rate in over 60 years in just over another 4.5 years. The currently available options only let you go back as far as New Year’s Day, 1980.

Homeownership Rate in the United States

Graph and download economic data for Homeownership Rate in the United States (RSAHORUSQ156S) from Q1 1980 to Q4 2023 about housing, rate, and USA.

It looks like you can’t read graphs, the current trend is up

Cost of living is not strictly inflation, it also includes necessary expenses that previous generations did not have to account for, minus necessary expenses that they did have to account for but which current ones do not. These expense changes occur continuously due to social, cultural, and technological changes, so it’s kind of hard to honestly compare among generations, and more drastic the further apart they are.

Example: to get and keep my job today, I had to have a phone and a residence, a college degree in a specific field, and a certain level of personal hygiene. For my great-grandfather, to find a job that gave him the same purchasing power in terms of food, shelter, healthcare, and leisure, he needed a willingness to work, a bit of strength, and to not be sick. The need for a car to get to work and the grocery store, deodorant for men, home phones, social security, and education requirements weren’t even things back then. Medicine was nowhere near as advanced so costs were much lower, but you might actually die from things that we would consider mundane inconveniences today. Pensions still existed, and provided enough to actually live in old age. He didn’t buy a house, he built it, without any of the code/safety requirements of today.

Longer-term expense commitments for my grandparents: a vehicle, gas for heating instead of coal, ice blocks for their ice box to keep perishable foods longer. These brought many improvements that were worth the added expenses. They could still afford to have 5+ children (both sets of grandparents) on a single working-class home.

My parents needed a second car because they needed a second income, both jobs requiring more education, to support fewer children in poorer conditions, with a smaller house. My grandfather discouraged my dad from getting a job in the trades (where he worked his whole life) because of the detriment it caused to his physical health, and a recession and conservative deregulations had gutted the trade unions so they could no longer provide the same level of benefits and could only provide seasonal/inconsistent work opportunities. He had to take on a second career after his first.

With no kids and a good job, I still couldn’t even dream of getting a mortgage until well into my 30s, and most of my generation still can’t. And the generations behind me are clearly worse off than me. Their education costs are double mine, but neither wages nor inflation have doubled in that time! While available quality of life is higher now, it’s nowhere near guaranteed. The increase in cost of living is undeniably much higher than the rise in inflation has been.

This might be different in your country, but in the US this isn’t true.

Inflation doesn’t track cost of living - it includes things like military expenses in its basket of goods. Cost of living is indexed by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which only includes items that households purchase in its basket of goods. However, even CPI is flawed since it still fails to account for shrinkflation and is artificially kept low to keep social security payments lower (and the system solvent).

The study that graph is from literally says that millenial growth has stalled compared to baby boomer and silent generations:

www.federalreserve.gov/econres/…/2024007pap.pdf

We confirm that there has been a slowdown in intergenerational progress, except for Millennials who saw their incomes grow slightly faster than Generation X but still more slowly than Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation. Intergenerational progress has remained positive for all generations.

First, we find that the higher household incomes of Millennials relative to Generation X, through their 20s, is a result of dependence on their parents rather than a rise in their own market incomes.

How do they calculate your household income when you can’t afford a household?
I think you’re being glib, but my assumption is they are using household in the IRS sense, I e. A household consists of any one taxpayer and whoever they can claim as dependents.
No, I honestly didn’t know. Thank you. So if more than one person lives in a house, if they are unrelated (i.e. roommates, no dependents) it’s more than one household?
Yes, for tax purposes, which then implies such a metric can be used for income reporting, as is this case with this chart. After all, if you and a platonic roommate were sharing an apartment, you probably wouldn’t want to include their income on your filings to the IRS. For one, the illegality of falsely claiming a dependent, but also simply because the last thing you want the government thinking is that you made more money than you actually did.
That makes sense. Thanks.

I didn’t realize that you were linking to the same paper I had found independently and is the source of the parent comment. The way they are calculating household income isn’t the same as the IRS.

Household income refers to total income received by all members of household, divided by the square root of the household.

It’s a wonky calculation.

Meaningless chart.

It doesn’t account for things like the median home price in 1950 being ~$7000 vs over $400,000 today. The chart doesn’t show a peak earning increase of 10x between the Silent Generation vs GenX, which seems to have done the best, albeit only briefly.

Home ownership right now is the same as in 1950, like 60-ish%

None of your charts say anything for first time home buyers. Total home ownership percentage is meaningless when you’re also trying to assert what you are about younger generations. My wage isn’t made any more livable because my grandparents bought a house in the 60s.

When you focus so hard on limited statistics your conclusions are similarly limited. Consider this: in 2022 the percentage of college educated people in the US actually went down from previous years. That’s never happened before because college has never been as unattainable as it is now. Unemployment rates are the lowest they’ve been in decades, but places like restaurants are being forced to close because they can’t fill low paying positions. Either young people are bound and determined to die penniless and uneducated, or there’s some problems you’re conveniently ignoring.

So you are saying that Millenials at their peak now are making as much as Boomers did 20 years ago when houses were about a quarter of the price, and somehow your conclusion is that Millenials are doing great? Or let’s look at age vs age: at age 40 a Millenial makes twice as much as a Boomer did at that age, but a Boomer at age 40 could buy a new house in a nice suburb for under $100k when that exact same house is over $300k now.

The chart is indexed for inflation. Housing went up faster, but things like fuel are not so expensive comparatively

You’re cherry picking things that went up faster

By the way, home ownership rate:

At least this one explaothe y axis…

The CPI used for that doesn’t distinguish between generations so the lower house prices from people who got their houses in the 1990s are going to be mixed with the higher house prices of those trying to get their houses now with the former dilluting the latter.

Further the inflation index doesn’t reflect a lowering utility value of houses: if dwellings further and furthe taway from the places of work are built and occupied because people are been pushed further out by higher prices, so the utility of the houeses is lowet, that is not reflected in the CPI (at most it makes it a bit lower than it should be since the expanding pool of lower utility houses pulls the average price down a bit).

Further, as others pointed out, younger people are staying in their parents for longer and longer AND delaying childbirth, so their available income is higher because they’re not spending any money in housing or children.

The numbers not only do not reflect a better life, they’re not even comparable in their own merits across generations because the personal inflation of somebody looking for a place to live now is totally different from the one of those who have been living in a house they bought 30 years ago.

That’s a valid criticism, but most mortgages are 30 years, so anyone who bought a house in 1994 is paying their last payments on it.

People like my dad who bought houses during the 2000s didn’t get a good deal. Sure, it still eventually appreciated, but it’s not an outrageously good deal compared to getting a house just a few years later

That said, it’s getting better in places that build new housing

Okay now do one that shows how much is available after paying for things like rent, food, car, etc.

Meaningless chart

That’s been done too

home.treasury.gov/…/the-purchasing-power-of-ameri…

Purchasing power of American households is at all time high

The Purchasing Power of American Households

Eric Van Nostrand, P.D.O. Assistant Secretary for Economic PolicyLaura Feiveson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for MicroeconomicsTara Sinclair, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Macroeconomics The U.S. economy has made considerable progress in 2023.  Inflation is down six percentage points from its peak in 2022. At the same time, real wages are rising and unemployment remains historically low.  But despite the significant progress on inflation, Americans continue to feel the pain of higher prices. President Biden’s economic agenda focuses on giving middle class families more breathing room.  That means helping reduce the cost of goods and services, and even more importantly, increasing household incomes.  When incomes rise faster than prices, households can afford more: they have more purchasing power.  This is precisely the trend we have seen in the United States since the pandemic.  Thanks to rising real wages (wages adjusted for inflation) and rising employment, the typical American can afford more goods and services than before the pandemic.This blog explores the interplay of wages, employment, and prices to unpack this dynamic. We offer four key conclusions:Real wages have risen since before the pandemic across the income distribution.  In particular, middle-income and lower-income households have seen their real earnings rise especially fast.  And in the past 12 months, real wages overall have grown faster than they did in the pre-pandemic expansion. Household purchasing power has increased as a result.  In 2023, the median American worker can afford the same goods and services as they did in 2019, plus an additional $1,000 to spend or save—because median earnings rose faster than prices.The U.S. economy now has over 2 million more jobs than pre-pandemic forecasters expected.  Therefore, more and more workers are benefitting from increased purchasing power, thanks to the strong and resilient labor market.[1]This pattern of rising purchasing power is particularly American: other advanced economies have generally seen lower, and in many cases negative, real wage growth.Real Wages Across the Income DistributionBiden-Harris policies over the past three years have contributed to strong wage growth—wage growth that has outpaced inflation.  Support for labor unions and strong economic growth have served to create an economy that has strengthened workers’ voices.[2]  Workers have capitalized on the environment created by these policies, successfully bargaining for higher wages.  As a result, earnings have outpaced increases in prices such that real wages have increased since before the pandemic.  Real weekly earnings for the median worker grew 1.7 percent between 2019 and 2023.[3]  This means that one week of pay for the median worker now buys more than a week of pay did in 2019, despite higher prices.  Furthermore, as shown in Figure 1, the increases in earnings are by no means concentrated at the top: in fact, they skew toward the middle class and the lower end of the income distribution.  The 25th percentile of the wage distribution saw their nominal weekly earnings grow by $143, from $611 in 2019 to $754 in 2023.  When adjusted for inflation, this amounts to a 3.2 percent increase in real earnings.  Real earnings increases were particularly strong for the median Black and Hispanic Americans, who saw increases of 5.7 and 2.9 percent, respectively.[4]Figure 1: Growth of Real Earnings since Pre-Pandemic Across Income Distribution Not only is the level of real earnings higher than before the pandemic, but, as shown in Figure 2, the growth of real wages was faster over the past 12 months than it was during the pre-pandemic expansion, especially for production and non-supervisory workers.  Continued robust growth in real wages sets the stage for further gains in purchasing power. Figure 2: Real Wage Growth, Last 12 Months vs. Pre-PandemicRising Purchasing Power for the Median American WorkerThe typical "consumption bundle" purchased by the average American reflects a mixture of goods and services that have seen different price changes since 2019: increases for some items and declines for others.  Americans are certainly feeling the bite of higher gas and food prices, which were hit hard by Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine.  Since gas and food are purchased frequently and are necessities, they are particularly salient to consumers.  But the prices of many other goods and services have increased by less than median earnings or have outright declined. These include more infrequent or less salient purchases such as televisions, airline fares, internet services, and health insurance.  On net, the price growth of the average consumption bundle—which includes all items typically purchased and is shown in dark blue in Figure 3—has been less than the growth of median earnings. Figure 3: Examples of Goods and Services with Muted Price Growth or Price Declines from 2019 to 2023 Overall, these data show that most American workers can afford more goods and services than they did before the pandemic.  To illustrate this, we consider a worker that made median weekly earnings in both 2019 and 2023.  We suppose that, in 2019, this worker used their annual income to buy a consumption bundle according to the expenditure shares of the average American household.[5]  We then project what their expenditures would have been to buy the same bundle in 2023.[6]  Figure 4 shows how the share of earnings for each major expenditure category changed between 2019 and 2023.  Although for two of the expenditure categories—transportation, and food and beverages—the percent of earnings increased, for all other major categories it decreased.  On net, expenditures on the consumption bundle would have decreased as a percent of annual earnings by 1.7 percent.  Since median annualized earnings in 2023 were $58,140, the median worker would have had an additional nearly $1000 dollars to spend or save in 2023 had they bought the same goods and services they had in 2019.  Figure 4: Expenditure Share of Median Earnings, Change from 2019 to 2023 Employment Growth Beating ForecastsAs shown above, purchasing power has risen for workers that were employed in 2019 and remain employed in 2023.  But this observation alone understates the improvement in purchasing power for American households: not only are workers making higher earnings, but there are more workers than forecasters had predicted before or during the pandemic in 2020.  In fact, the prime-age employment-to-population ratio has recently reached an over 20-year high, a sign of the labor market’s strength. Higher levels of employment mean more workers and households are experiencing and sharing in the strength of real wages.In Figure 5, we compare today’s labor market outcomes with what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expected to occur in 2020.  The first bar shows that employment for the third quarter of 2023 surpassed their pre-pandemic forecast by more than 2 million jobs, suggesting that the labor market is even stronger than had been expected before the pandemic.  And, of course, forecasts were much more dire in the summer of 2020 after the onset of the pandemic.  At that time, CBO expected that by the third quarter of 2023, there would be 8.7 million fewer jobs than there are today (second bar).  Had either of those earlier forecasts come true, those millions of left-out workers would not be sharing in any current wage gains, and their purchasing power would likely have been lower as their families and households would have faced tighter budgets without their labor earnings.Figure 5: Employment—Actual versus ForecastedReal Wage Growth in Global Context This marked increase in purchasing power seems to be specific to the United States.  Other advanced economies, which have also experienced elevated rates of inflation, have largely seen declines in purchasing power since the pandemic.[7]  Of course, these countries all face different challenges.  Some of these differentials are due to European economies being more exposed to Russia’s war in Ukraine, which raised food and energy prices substantially.  Still, the United States stands out for the improvement in the purchasing power of American workers.  Figure 6 shows the increase in average real earnings across countries from 2019 to 2023. Note that, for data availability and comparability reasons, we show average hourly earnings for production and non-supervisory workers in the United States rather than real median weekly earnings referenced in some of the figures above.[8] Figure 6: International Comparison of Real Wage Growth ConclusionThe well-being of American households depends critically on their purchasing power.  Inflation eats into purchasing power, and many Americans have felt the bite of higher prices in their budgets in this recovery. But at the same time, higher wages and increased employment have outweighed the negative from inflation, and overall purchasing power has increased for most households.  The policies of this Administration have prioritized the well-being of American workers and their families—and these policies have worked.  A stronger labor market has meant more bargaining power for workers, new and better jobs for workers to move into, and strong wages for millions more Americans.  [1] To quantify the added purchasing power from employment gains, we need a measure of labor income at the household level.  Household income is available from Census at an annual frequency, currently through 2022.  However, the 2019 value of household income was likely a nonrepresentative sample—the data were collected at the peak of the pandemic between February and April of 2020.  See Rothbaum, Jonathan. “Was Household Income the Highest Ever in 2019?” U.S. Census Bureau, September 15, 2020.  As compared to 2018, real median household income grew 2.1 percent through 2022, but this confounds growth during the pandemic and recovery with growth between 2018 and 2019.  For this reason, we focus in this piece on the median earnings of American workers and on employment separately.[2] See U.S. Department of the Treasury. “Labor Unions and the Middle Class.” August 28, 2023. [3] Throughout this piece, comparisons between 2019 and 2023 represent comparisons between the third quarter of 2019 and the third quarter of 2023 to account for seasonal patterns in the data.  This particular statistic uses real median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, not seasonally adjusted.  Although this statistic has a seasonally adjusted published value, for which the growth rate from 2019Q3 to 2023Q3 is 1.4 percent, we report the NSA statistic to be consistent with the other estimates in Figure 1 which are only available not seasonally adjusted.[4] For a more detailed review of the progress made by historically disadvantaged groups in the recovery from the pandemic, see U.S. Department of the Treasury. “Equitable Recovery in the United States.” October 23, 2023.[5] We used the relative importance of major expenditure categories for the CPI-U in the third quarter of 2019 to estimate expenditure weights.[6] The projection is based on the cost of each major expenditure category growing in line with its CPI price index from the third quarter of 2019 to the third quarter of 2023.[7] On the comparison of inflation experiences across countries, see Van Nostrand, Eric, and Tara Sinclair. “The U.S. Economy in Global Context.” U.S. Department of the Treasury, October 26, 2023.[8] The earnings series used for each country is: United States: Average Hourly Earnings, Production & Non-Supervisory Employees: Private Nonfarm; Canada: Average Hourly Earnings including Overtime: Hourly Workers: Total Economy; France: Hourly Wages: Total Industry excluding Construction; Japan: Average Monthly Earnings (30 or more employees): All Industries; Great Britain (UK): Average Weekly Earnings (incl Bonus): Manufacturing; Germany: Negotiated Hourly Earnings: Industry including Construction; Italy: Contractual Wages per Hour: Industry including Construction.

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Okay, now why hasn’t the minimum wage been raised in literal decades?

Honestly it just seems like you’re being obtuse

That’s the federal minimum wage, cities have certainly raised their own minimum wages

That’s why only like 1% of workers make the federal minimum wage

Nice cherry picking, you got any other fallacies to throw in there?

1% of workers is not very impactful for the average income

The workers who make $20 minimum wage in SF are not affected by $7.25 minimum wage

So we should raise the federal minimum wage so that so-called 1% of people can’t be ignored like you’re trying to do.

This is how our argument has looked to me:

You: “well the average is fine”

Me: “well the average doesn’t help those at the bottom”

You: “well they don’t matter to the average”

Your arguments need a lot more work. You just seem soulless with the points you’re trying to make.

We weren’t arguing about the minimal wage. You are the one who brought it up. It’s not relevant to this discussion

Okay then what point are you trying to prove? I’ve looked at all your replies and you seem to always avoid the main question being asked.

So, again, what is the point you are trying to make?

Things are not, in fact, worse

In fact, things are better

And you have yet to prove that point

When people are polled about their own situation, they say they are in a good or a very good place

Dec 15-17 2023, 2120 participants

What are the demographics of those polled?

You’re not proving anything here

Busiest month of the year? I tried interviewing during that time and literally every company said their hr was on holidays already

You’re not convincing me. Just give up. After every reply I go back comfortably into not thinking about you only for you to pop up again.

Based on how you try to illustrate your points, you’ll never convince me. Just give up and go back to your life