I hear this sentiment expressed a lot, as well as the sentiment that millennials only loaded up on education debt to fuel a 4-year party. In my experience they are both wrong in 90%+ cases and are typically used to invalidate any calls to pay more attention to growing inequality in this country.

You are probably noticing the people who go out to eat and have nice cars/nice things much more than the people that sit in their cubicle and eat their homemade lunch, etc. Probably don't pay attention to (or don't even have a clue about) the people you deal with on a day-to-day basis that rent a portion of a room (not even a whole room - eat your hearts out boomers).

Also, you are comparing your parents spending WITH A FAMILY to people who are likely single or DINKS. This is not a worthwhile comparison.

Your point with housing is semi-valid, but there are very few small homes where I'm living in southern California. I know tons of people that would jump at the chance to have a tiny house if it meant it was actually affordable.

I certainly don't mean to disparage college education, particularly as someone who has never gone to college but firmly believes that it can be a very rewarding experience, but from my own anecdotal experience it seems that for a not insignificant number of people it does seem to be more or less four years of partying.

I'm fortunate to have a diverse social group with many friends who did go to college, and even count a CompSci PhD among my close friends, but from my interaction with them I get the impression that not all programs are of even remotely equivalent rigor. In particular, I get the impression that for the non science/engineering related disciplines it can be somewhat easy to coast through the curriculum depending on the school.

Again, this is just based on my own observations as someone who has never gone to college so it should be taken with a large grain of salt. Normally I would completely discount my own opinion here as observation bias, the only thing keeping me from doing so is my feeling that if college was as universally rigorous as many say it is, and placed as great an importance on critical thinking and independent thought as I've been led to believe, we should be seeing a much more conscientious and knowledgeable citizenry considering we are living in a time were more people are going to college than ever before. I'm not sure that's the case however.

Agreed. I was merely comparing my situation. I am still (but barely) in my 30's and have a family of 4. And I agree about the SoCal thing (though there are smaller houses to be found, I lived in 1400 sqft in Orange County. But they are building McMansions because that's what people want.

Right. It can't reasonably be said that people aren't interested in small houses.

I absolutely disagree with this sentiment. I'm just at the 30 mark with many of my coworkers and friends in their mid 20s. The only entitlements they ever talk about are work related and that's because it's all we have to turn to when we're sick (like a pit crew on a track, we need to know we can get fixed up and back out there ASAP.)

Growing up I remember similar things as you do. Limited dining out, basic cable, etc. But that was a combined income household, and in my neighborhood, that usually meant the dad was a union guy and the mom was a 9-5'r. Back when there were fruitful jobs outside of the city.

Now, here I am, 10 years after the same point my parents became parents, happy to just now reach a point of self sustaining income that will finally dent my debt. Having now lived through 2 economic collapses, several major terrorist attacks, unpredictable employment, total displacement of entire industries, and a political environment that fuels extremists and extreme actions, I can't imagine making any kind of plans beyond the next 2 years, much less a lifetime.

This.

US home ownership has gone up and down between 64% and 69% in the past 30 years, currently at the low end of that. But at the same time, the average new house went from 1,600 to 2,500 sqft.

Thirty years ago, how many people plopped down $5k for a TV? $700 for a phone? $150/month for telecom?

Life expediency has increased by 6 years from 1975 to 2010.

And to top it off, we're working less than we ever have. Average hours per year: 1,900 (1950), 1,800 (1970), 1,725 (1990), and 1,700 (2010).

Despite the "back in my day" doomsaying, on average, our quality of life has never been better.

---

My two cents why:

Cent 1: In a globally connected world, we are painfully obvious of the millions of people living more comfortably than us. When it was just Mr. Jones down the block, it didn't feel so bad.

Cent 2: Culture and priorities have changed. Rural population has been dropping for decades. People are more likely to rent a 500 sqft apartment in a large urban center than rent/buy a 900 sqft house in a town of 20k. Not a bad thing, just a different thing, and we have to take into account the whole picture.

> And to top it off, we're working less than we ever have

This really struck me. I am going to assume your numbers ar correct, but if you could point me to a source I would love that. (did a quick search on the web, couldn't find exactly what I would like)

My first thought was that it is fascinating that we would be working 12% less hours per person. I wonder how that break down by gender. The number I keep finding is per day men @ 8.4 vs women @ 7.7 which doesn't match your number because it is only talking about full time employment. Hence if you can help me find better numbers that would be great.

Then I realized the horrible truth residing in your numbers: in 1950 it was almost exclusively men who worked. Today women make up almost half of the workforce. On a per capita basis we are working much, much more than we used too. From this Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#United_States:

  The average working time of married couples – of both husband and wife taken together – rose from 56 hours in 1969 to 67 hours in 2000

Turns out things are worse than they used to be. Nobody spent $700 on a phone but they did spend $600, in 1986 dollars, on a microwave - which is roughly $1300 in 2016. And few people spend $5000 on a tv today. A $5000 dollar tv is likely 75 inches or more - I don't know if I have ever been in a home with a TV that large.

The middle class has disappeared and it is not because they became wealthy, lazy or demanding.

> if you could point me to a source I would love that

Data from FRED. Graphs: http://www.businessinsider.com/average-annual-hours-worked-f...

You're correct that more people working per household is a likely cause of less hour per employee, larger houses, etc.

First, homemakers aren't unemployed. They just work at different things.

Second, look at the employment rate charted over the last forty years or so. Some of that may be explained by retiring baby boomers, but it's the following generations that will need to pick up the economic slack to pay for retirement, healthcare, prop up their home values so they can retire, etc.

>First, homemakers aren't unemployed. They just work at different things.

So you are agreeing - since before one person was devoted full time to homemaking, and now they must find paid employment - that work still needs to be done so it must be done in addition to the hours worked at an employer.

so instead of one person doing 40 hours at an employer and one person staying home to keep up the house - we have two people working 40 hours each and then working overtime to maintain their house after work. We've added 40 hours of work to the equation.

The average new house is targeted at a small minority of relatively wealthy people, because they're the most profitable market. It's not going to be terribly representative of what normal people want. (Even here in the UK, where new house sizes are effectively capped now, they still cost more than a larger older house because house builders want to make money..)

Televisions themselves have come way (way!) down in price.

Bigger, better televisions cost 1/2 as much before accounting for inflation.

There was certainly a brief period where medium sized flat screens were a little bit pricey.

A 900 sq ft condo let alone home will run you $750k+ lots of places.

It's really not that many places when you take the whole US into account.

This logic is flawed in the sense of completely misunderstanding of "progress".

Sure, the 900sqft home argument might be somewhat valid. But in the majority of the situations I've seen, it's the opposite happening. So I'd challenge this one for sure.

As for the cable TV and phone line... Yea. There is something called technological progress. We have more services today because that's the world we live in, a connected world, where work and personal lives merge and access to the internet is paramount.

Your parents bought used reliable cars, great, people still do. But cars are relatively cheaper/easier to produce as well. Are you going to say the same thing when the next generation "rents" car rides as their monthly expense?

Eating out... yep. People eat out more. It's more efficient and frankly cheaper in some scenarios. That's not always the case, but often is. And in larger cities where kitchens are absolutely tiny, cooking is not only inefficient, but sometimes not even possible. So, I'd challenge this as a misunderstanding of the times - again.

Where money is spent vs how it's earned and the cost of living play into all of this. And just because the allocations aren't the same, the idea that it should be attributed to "entitlement" simply puts you on the "out of touch" spectrum.

Good day.

No kidding. The big three expenses in life are home (rent or mortgage), education, and health care. Those three expenses have gone through the roof.

Fancy TV set? Eating out? Smartphone? That stuff isn't why people are poorer these days. Not even close.

But they are. Because those are the difference between saving money per month and not. Disposable income is where we make a choice. We save it or spend it.

> Earnings aside, current generations are spending way more because they want more.

That's certainly true, but nowadays the incentives which nudge you to consumption are also much more intense, subtle and clever. We are tricked into things we do not need.

The ONLY escape is not clever consumption but no/reduced consumption, or actually more precise, any consumption which does not involve money to be transferred.

I don't mean to sound like just being contrary to you, but your anecdote doesn't square with the article. If half earn less than you did then that would mean they wouldn't afford what they want according to you and want you wanted at your age, so either way, they're hosed.

You seem to think that income always corresponds to expenses.

Good luck finding a 900 sqft house now.