How is a $90,000 starting salary for a javascript bootcamp grad a sign of the end of days?
It seems to me the problem is occurring as the "millennials" want to settle down in mid-life, buy a house, buy a car, have kids, and save for their college.
In short, the middle class baby boomer lifestyle seems completely out of reach for most in their twenties and thirties.
Seattle houses (condos on the market are usually pretty fancy and on par with house prices) are roughly 450K on the low end; neighboring cities hew to that, with the usual SES modifiers.
So if you're making, say, 100K/yr salary, your conservative financial buy of a house is about 300K. Welp. There you go. No house for you.
The trick here is that it's leaving out the key aspect: 90K for a bootcamp grad is great pay. It's excellent if you're 22 years old, and want to save for a house over 10 years. In a decade your salary will probably be between 140 and 200, not counting inflation. This is great.
If, however, you've farted around following your dreams or just want a new career, you're 32, maybe you have a kid or want one, you are looking at a different time run way for saving, different personal needs, maybe you have health issues, maybe you have a family, maybe they have health issues.
I would argue that the key issue here is the stupid high cost of housing that has been produced by stupid anti-development laws.
That's a convenient bogeyman. That's not to say there isn't truth to it--more or less depending upon the locale. But at least an equal driver is the relatively sudden desire of certain demographics to live in a handful of urban areas.
I'd add that if someone has farted around until they're 32 and just getting ready to think about starting a career, I'm not sure in what period they'd be in good shape to buy a house in anything considered a passable neighborhood with employment possibilities.
That's true! I'm in Seattle, which is undergoing a job boom and concomitant low supply of housing. Lots of people are like "I WANT A JOB" and showing up.
> I'd add that if someone has farted around until they're 32 and just getting ready to think about starting a career, I'm not sure in what period they'd be in good shape to buy a house in anything considered a passable neighborhood with employment possibilities.
Mmm.... wiggles hands depends on what era and what locale. It's been definitely doable in the less-urban areas. Still true today in the right intersection of suburban and employment area. And of course, the US Gov has been doing various amounts of subsidizing over time for different blocks.
edit: oh yes.
There's a really complicated set of class/aspirational class thing where working in trades is often looked down upon, and (starving) artists are looked up to, and often it's seen as better (by some) to be unemployed and looking for working in your chosen field than employed in a crappy job and looking for your chosen work. I don't think it's very well understood - at least from my reading - and certainly it's not economically effective for the US population.
Fair enough. There certainly used to be more opportunities for someone at 32 who was willing to work reliably and hard even if they weren't educated or otherwise have a developed set of skills. And, as you say, some of this is related to "the trades" not being viewed as appropriate work by certain demographics. (Of course, many trades require significant skill and it may be difficult to get started if you don't have the right connections.)
That is not a realistic expectation in Seattle.
Baby-Boomers: Eldest child, assertive and confident, though takes for granted the opportunities it's been provided by being the eldest, feels the younger kids would be more successful if they just followed their example.
Gen-Xers: Middle child, mostly forgotten about, more involved in taking care of the youngest.
Mellenials: Youngest child, brash and open, generally optimistic, though sometimes hit hard by the harshness of the world.
The 90s were full of sentiment about how Gen-X was the "first generation to be worse off than their parents." But the media has long since moved on. I guess, "millennials still better off than Gen-X" doesn't really generate clicks.
They're also the ones writing these articles.
No, that was the Boomers. The reason that you get all these Boomer vs. Millenial articles is that Gen-X was comparatively a baby bust between the Boomers and the Millenials, such that Gen-X never were the largest generation in the population, and never dominated (and likely never will dominate) political or social influence. Earlier this year, Millenials passed Boomers to take the top spot in sheer numbers, something Gen-X never had.
Edit in reply:
The entire article is about painting millennials with a broad brush, written by a member of Generation X. Now you complain you're being stereotyped?
Give me a break.
Gen-Xers, anyone?