Why Gen Y yuppies are unhappy

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Rerun

1970's typical middle class family RV...

snip

Year 2010 typical middle class family RV...

snip

Yep... life has definitely gone downhill in the past 40 years.

RV's aren't worth it anyways. If you're going to stay in an RV, just get a hotel. I never saw the point in getting a huge winabago to "be outdoors" ...

[TurnedTheCorner]

They should be unhappy. Everyone should be unhappy. Life is bull####.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

When the computer was invented, that changed the market.

When the car was invented, the way cities are built and the way people lived changed.

When the internet came out there was a huge shift in industry.

When the steam engine..

Printing press...

We aren't special. The world has been a changing place for a very long time.

And it still is. Maybe I misinterpret your post, but I get this idea that you seem to imply that things are easier now then a century ago - which I wouldn't necessarly diagree with. However, the infinite number of variables and their general importance don't equal to a obvious result. While the overall life quality overall is better every decade, various factors and their timing might make situations tougher for some rather then others.

FTR: I'm not whining about it, I have had a pretty easy lifestyle with no major road bumps and gotten lucky in times when major road bumps did arise.

[annasuave]

Happiness = Reality – Expectations

It’s an interesting and simple statement in general. And yet, when applied to broad swaths of demographics, it takes on a bit of a preachy tone. It makes me want to come to the defense of Gen Y’s.

I recall coming of age at a time when interest rates were through the roof and unemployment was rampant. I recall hearing messages (and not subtle ones) that as Gen X-ers we were cynical, alienated, and had poor social skills (no doubt from all the time we spent indoors playing Pong and Pac-Man.) We would never have permanent jobs. We would never be able to afford our own homes. There would never be any pension for us. Baby Boomers were going to buy everything, spend everything, use the whole world up and leave nothing behind for us. There was no point in striving because there was nothing to strive for – and oh yeah – if you had sex, you’d die.

You could say that a generation raised on such expectations has plenty to be happy about today. Most of us found jobs, and found it was possible to advance and build a career. Many of us bought houses, got married, had kids (and didn’t die from having sex), and found lots of meaningful things to fill up our lives. In other words, the future in which we found ourselves didn’t suck nearly as badly as we were led to expect.

In that light, it’s ridiculous to pretend that members of any given generation are incapable of adapting to changing environments. Kids and young adults have nothing to go on except their expectations and the messages they heard growing up. But as rational humans, they will of course, re-assess and alter their expectations based on the reality in which they find themselves.

If Generation Y grew up hearing that they were awesome, they were special, and that they deserved the best of everything (and I’m not saying they did), then reality they find themselves in today is bound to be disappointing. But to assume that they will be permanently stuck with those attitudes is simple-minded. They might start out entitled and naive, but they’re not stupid.

I recall boomers telling me that I was sulky and cynical, my pants were too big, my music was crap, and why on earth would I ever want to get pierced there? But I don’t recall being nit-picked the way the Millennials are today. These young folks are just trying to make their way, same as every other generation did. I’m sure they’ll figure it out.

Didn’t David Bowie say it best? About two generations ago?
I watch the ripples change their size
But never leave the stream
Of warm impermanence
So the days float through my eyes
But still the days seem the same
And these children that you spit on
As they try to change their worlds
Are immune to your consultations
They're quite aware of what they're goin' through

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

They should be unhappy. Everyone should be unhappy. Life is bull####.

[JobHopper]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

They should be unhappy. Everyone should be unhappy. Life is bull####.

Woe is me?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

They should be unhappy. Everyone should be unhappy. Life is bull####.

[Clarkey]

Debt is just one measure of comparison. Many 20-30 somethings in Calgary have $400-500k mortgage, car payment, student loans, lower relative income, etc.... but they also get to live longer, high-speed internet, cell phones, global communication, cheap stuff from China, accessibility to any products they want, infinite access to information, more geopolitical stability, better environmental stewardship, better work-life balance, yearly vacations around the globe, miniscule chance of being drafted to a war, 10,000 years of music/video/books on a handheld device....

[GirlySports]

There is no reason anyone under 30 should have a $400-$500K mortgage. None. That's just digging your own grave.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

There is no reason anyone under 30 should have a $400-$500K mortgage. None. That's just digging your own grave.

The culprit is cheap money. If interest rates were to rise 4-5 percent.......

[flylock shox]

I think the task for this generation is not to overcome the material hurdles placed in their paths, but to redefine what it means to be rich. They, and the world for that matter, can't afford the rampant consumerism of their forebears. They would be better off "regressing" in the material sense, and focusing instead on community, collective assets, and cooperation. If they can do that, they might not only be happier than their parents, but might save the world for their own children too.

A subtle shift in perspective might do everyone a whole lot of good, and the tools at their disposal - near unlimited access to information, social networking, internet publication, idea sharing - might just enable them to do it.

Here's hoping...

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

There is no reason anyone under 30 should have a $400-$500K mortgage. None. That's just digging your own grave.

Lol what?! Why not?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by blankall

Canada is one of the few countries in the world where Universities do not co-ordinate with the federal government over how many students they have in each faculty. In Scandinavian countries and Switzerland the government takes active control over how many students are allowed into each and every program. They have virtually no youth unemployment as a result.

This is very inaccurate.

Finland has a youth unemployment rate of ~25%.
Sweden has a youth unemployment rate of ~24%.
Norway generally has a low unemployment rate, because it's a rich oil country.

The Danes actually have a pretty good system that the local social democrats came up with in the mid 90's, (sometimes called "flexicurity", although that term is often poorly used).

At it's core it's about three things
1) Ease of hiring and firing employees
2) High level of unemployment benefits
3) Active policies to promote re-employment (for example, an employee about to lose his/her job gets paid vacation days to search for a new job; but really there's a ton of stuff the state and the soon-to-be-former employer are required to do help the employee get hired somewhere else.)

It's a great system really, and has cut the unemployment in Denmark to really low numbers while giving their economy a nice boost. Unfortunately since it requires high taxation on the high income bracket and good benefits for the unemployed, it's politically impossible in most countries, even though it pretty much gives everyone what they want. (It's even generally beneficial for the people in the high income bracket because they tend to benefit the most from a general economic boost.)

In Finland the ratio of eduction opportunities and actual jobs out there is also pretty badly out of whack. We need to import doctors to fill vacancies, but churn out ridiculous numbers of media workers etc.

My wife studied biochemistry at the university level, and just scored her first real (hopefully) steady job in her field, at the age of 35. Most of her peers have reacted with a "wow, there are actually jobs in this field?" The ratio of chemists/biochemists trained and the jobs in the field is badly distorted, and their student union has for years lobbied for the number of students accepted to be lowered, with no success.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Lol what?! Why not?

Because instead of paying off their student loans they saddle themselves with more debt. Then they have no money to go to the mall, thus weakening the overall economy. That results in stagnant wages, layoffs etc. Viscous circle.

And isn't that what Gen Y are mainly having a hard time with? Student loan debt and stagnant wages?

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

There is no reason anyone under 30 should have a $400-$500K mortgage. None. That's just digging your own grave.

Maybe not one mortgage, but back in 2005_when I was under 30...I wish I would have been holding 700k in mortgage debt. 850k of houses from than is still worth over 1 million today, and rents have always been high enough to cver the payments even tru the recession.

Your statement is too general and doesn't apply to everyone. Every well off person in my age range I know took huge risks to get to where they are today. Usually it involved borrowing money. Difference is they didn't borrow to buy a boat, or go on a trip, or even live in a fancy house.

Still if you are going to have a 500k mortgage...if your income level allows better at 30 than at 40. A 30 year old with a 500k mortgage they can pay will likely end up better off than 40 year old me who's mortgage is half that but still goes on for 22 more years. A 28 year old engineer or dentist, is not the same as a 28 year old shop labourer.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Maybe not one mortgage, but back in 2005_when I was under 30...I wish I would have been holding 700k in mortgage debt. 850k of houses from than is still worth over 1 million today, and rents have always been high enough to cver the payments even tru the recession.

Your statement is too general and doesn't apply to everyone. Every well off person in my age range I know took huge risks to get to where they are today. Usually it involved borrowing money. Difference is they didn't borrow to buy a boat, or go on a trip, or even live in a fancy house.

Still if you are going to have a 500k mortgage...if your income level allows better at 30 than at 40. A 30 year old with a 500k mortgage they can pay will likely end up better off than 40 year old me who's mortgage is half that but still goes on for 22 more years. A 28 year old engineer or dentist, is not the same as a 28 year old shop labourer.

Exactly. To make the statement "nobody under 30 should have..." is a pretty broad and ridiculous statement when you never know people's financial position or financial health. Or their earning power, or their financial goals or plans..... or really anything.

Girlysports may be right that many people under 30 over leverage themselves, but to make the statement "nobody under..." is way too broad.

Some people make enough money and have made some good decisions before 30. Remember that 30 includes 12 solid years of earning potential after high school... typically 8 solid years after post secondary where you could get a relatively stable / higher earning job. That's a long time. I'm not saying I took out a huge mortgage, but I could see how people could.

Maybe people are fine with over leveraging themselves early on, knowing their earning potential will grow. Or maybe they're not even over leveraged at all.

Anyway my point is that not everybody is the same. And that is my problem with these ridiculously wide sweeping generalizing statements about entire swaths of people based on when they're born.

[GirlySports]

income is not guaranteed forever, it's just too risky to over-leverage oneself. We all know the stories of engineers with big houses and cars in 2008 who lost their jobs.

Even if I was under 30 and made over $100K with a husband that also made over $100K, I would still buy a house that's under 500K, put a big downpayment on it or pay it off entirely.. why pay interest at all?

Then I have a nice, affordable 300-400K house (it's just the two of us, or maybe have one kid at that time) then my NEXT house when I'm over 30 will be closer to a million because I have this 400K house plus the money I've saved as a downpayment.

But 20somethings having a mortgage of over 500K? just seem dangerous and unecessary.

I'm a very safe and boring person that hoards money. I don't think I took a single vacation off the continent from the age of 22-28.

[Dion]

The problem comes when home buyers don't plan for future interest hikes in their budgets. All this cheap money isn't going to last forever and when it goes up there's going to be a lot of people in financial trouble. We could see a housing buuble burst similar to what they had in the States.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

income is not guaranteed forever, it's just too risky to over-leverage oneself. We all know the stories of engineers with big houses and cars in 2008 who lost their jobs.

Even if I was under 30 and made over $100K with a husband that also made over $100K, I would still buy a house that's under 500K, put a big downpayment on it or pay it off entirely.. why pay interest at all?

Then I have a nice, affordable 300-400K house (it's just the two of us, or maybe have one kid at that time) then my NEXT house when I'm over 30 will be closer to a million because I have this 400K house plus the money I've saved as a downpayment.

But 20somethings having a mortgage of over 500K? just seem dangerous and unecessary.

I'm a very safe and boring person that hoards money. I don't think I took a single vacation off the continent from the age of 22-28.

But again those decisions you made are aligned with your risk tolerance and your earning potential. What if a guy under 30 makes more than 100k / year? What if they had a ridiculous inheritance? What if they were an entrepreneur and their business took off and they're a millionaire? Still under 30, but wealthier than others much older.

There's just no hard and fast rule, absolutes, black and white scenarios for any generation.

You made decisions on your risk tolerance and your earnings, what if other people are different? It doesn't make it the wrong decision necessarily.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Dion

The problem comes when home buyers don't plan for future interest hikes in their budgets. All this cheap money isn't going to last forever and when it goes up there's going to be a lot of people in financial trouble. We could see a housing buuble burst similar to what they had in the States.

Well who's fault is that?

Honestly, yes you can say that people should be more responsible. But when you graduate high school without ever having to take any kind of financial management course, and then you have banks trying to rape and pillage as much as possible.....

maybe these lenders can Fata right off and stop lending the money and OVEREXTENDING themselves if interest rates escalate. It's a risky game but it's also a two way street.