Comment by rozap
3 days ago
They want to be able to afford a house. Historically, in the US at least, for lower and middle class people that has been within reach. Now that's not the case. If I was in my late 20s and was lighting thousands per month on fire in rent, it'd be pretty darn alienating. Sure, if you zoom out far enough, the standard of living for zoomers is pretty good, there's not a mass casualty event when the potato crop fails. But if you don't (and I'd argue, you shouldn't) it's pretty clear that their economic prospects are worse than their parents. That is pretty bleak. It's no wonder why they're politically more radical than the other generations.
Put in the simplest terms: Economic nihilism happens when no house.
They don't want just a house though. They want a house in a "cool" area. Look at median home prices in rust belt cities. Mortgages around $2k a month or so. Very doable for a lot of people but you never hear a drum beat about this. You never hear about people moving to these cities unless they have family there already to remind them that, hey, this is in fact a great deal.
>They don't want just a house though. They want a house in a "cool" area.
I'd just like a proper job again, thanks. Just like I had before the tech industry shit itself 2-3 years ago. My current "cool" ideas are not being in debt and not worrying about a 3000 dollar catalytic converter replacement.
Now my "really cool ideas" is being able to take a bus around town without being stranded if I miss the last bus at 8pm. But that's blue sky thinking right now.
Are there jobs in those cities who sit in an area named after their economic collapse?
Do student loan costs go down if you move to a low cost of living area?
We had some movement in the direction of people immigrating to low cost areas like that with the rise of remote work, but then execs decided they didn’t like not having control over their workers live and did RTO. To their offices in the cities with high rent and home prices.
You never heard about people taking that “great deal” because it’s not a great deal. Like really, you think there’s money left on the table like that and there’s not at least some low double digit percentage of the population that would have sought out the benefit? Or is it more likely the market evaluated the option and it’s not good
It's very rich when people who are likely 15-20+ years in their career in San Franscisco are telling the modern youth to just "move to Alabama". As if they can just find a cushy tech job in a market that is using RTO's to force layoffs.
People this detached really need to spend a few days on linkedIn applying to jobs. Not with their connection, but through those horrible workday portals and thousands of apps turned in after an hour of the post.
5 replies →
Of course there are jobs in these places. Some of these metro areas have 2 million people. They aren't just digging though the mud in the midwest like peasants in monty python. Student loans aren't so high if you went in state.
Exactly. Do people want to live in desirable areas? Absolutely. The much bigger draw to expensive metros, however, are the vastly more robust job prospects that come with those areas.
In a city, you have both much better chances of finding employment suited to your skills specifically, better chances of being paid well for it, and better chances of upwards mobility. Plus, should it become necessary you're more likely to be able to find something to keep the bills paid with even if it's not what you'd like to be doing.
Low CoL areas by contrast come with scant employment that's generally poorly compensated and almost always has a low ceiling.
In some cases one can commute into the city for work and live in LCoL area, but then you're burning time — multiple hours each day, usually — that you'll never get back on your employer instead of yourself or with your family, plus the myriad expenses that come with driving that far and often.
5 replies →
A yes, the rust belt, where folks are famously living like fat cats.
Detroit used to suck, but it seems like enough millenials took that deal that it’s way better than ten years ago.
Used to be you could buy a starter home in those cool places. I live in one today with a $1200 mortgage. Good luck buying that now, kids.
Per Atrioc
I've been got
Affording a house is totally within reach if you want to make it a priority. Quite a few US states have both a low unemployment rate and a high homeownership rate. Try Vermont, Alabama, Montana, New Hampshire, Maine, Wyoming, etc. I understand that failed progressive policies have ruined opportunities for youths in some other states and that sucks but nationwide the future is still bright.
https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
https://www.statsamerica.org/sip/rank_list.aspx?rank_label=h...
1. unemployment rate is low because people unemployed Doordash to make ends meet. This is not "a house is within reach" money.
2. saying "move to a state with less job opportunity" to afford necessities really shows how out of touch people are with the youth. They moving to another state with what money? How are they getting approved without a job in tow?
3. "I understand that failed progressive policies have ruined opportunities for youths in some other states" is a doubly loaded sentence. a) it was not "progressive policies" that enabled zoning laws, lobbied out workers rights and unions, and made women lose agencies of their bodies. b) This isn't a "state by state" thing. Tell me how the job market is in Kentucky and why it's thriving compared to New York
4. "nationwide the future is still bright" The nation is bright when old people prosper and the youth suffer (which you half acknowledge)? So what's happening in 20 years when most of those people die? Is it gonna finally trickle down this time?
Do you seriously believe that a lot of people in Vermont and Wyoming are working DoorDash? Young people are literally buying houses in those places. Put your prejudices aside and look at the actual economic data. Or keep whining, your choice.
1 reply →