Glad I'm not a millennial

[kcowan]

I think these people will adapt to their environment, benefit from technology, and come out just fine. Just look at how the people of Europe have adapted.

The problem arises when meddling parents like us try to "improve their lives" based on our standards. My youngest just sold his second car because with Uber and smart sharing of parental responsibilities, they can flourish with just one. Plus they are determined to walk everywhere, including the gym.

[target2019]

Glad I'm not the parent of a millennial gen Y. LOL. Wait, I am!

[trixs]

I dont know if I buy into the stereotypes. Personally, I am on the upper end of the millennial bracket in my early thirties. Don't have a dataplan, cable tv, or home phone. I do have a few top of the line computers and the fastest internet I can purchase in my area.

On the monetary front I have managed to accumulate 400K in liquid assets from a 60K/year (after tax) j*b. Additionally I will have a military retirement in 5.5 more years. I would say that this forum, and Nords specifically, have significantly influenced me. If I didn't find this forum over a decade ago who knows if I would have ever even considered early retirement or even investing for that matter. I certainly didn't learn about it from my Baby Boomer parents.

[papadad111]

I actually find the advent of the constantly connected world and smart phone to be net-positive.

The ability to acquire accurate and multi-point validated information instantly versus hours of research (only to learn that the research or conclusion was wrong &waste of time ). is a huge boon to personal productivity.

There are downsides too- like not making eye contact because everyone's face is in their phone.

But above is huge wrt productivity of mankind. It's not all Facebook and selfies and food-porn photos - I'm amazed at what I now do on my phone that I used to do on my PC or by manually looking something up in the (sic.) library.

I predict personal interaction will be a 100-level freshman college course before long. Think of the possibilities.

[Shawn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zesty Haha, you say that like it's a bad thing. I did a solid year of 60-70 hour weeks and it was absolutely awful for the quality of my life.

Working 9-5 as opposed to 60-70 hours a week is neither good nor bad. However, it is a choice, and choices have consequences. In general, people who are more dedicated to their jobs/careers are better compensated than people who are not. Money may not be everything, but it still provides a lot of fringe benefits - like the ability to ER.

The same is true with LBYM/savings. Saving 50% of pretax income - like you do - is neither good nor bad. But it has consequences. These consequences may be negative in the near-term (e.g., can't buy the latest toys) but are positive in the long-term (e.g., the ability to ER).

In general, the ability to ER results from a lifetime of reasonable choices. It has little if anything to do with being a Boomer or a Millennial.

[frayne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt34 People are people, there probably won't be substantial differences between the millennial's and boomer's retirement successes or failures. Some people can handle money, some can't.

Pretty much my take as well.

[Greencheese]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn Working 9-5 as opposed to 60-70 hours a week is neither good nor bad. However, it is a choice, and choices have consequences. In general, people who are more dedicated to their jobs/careers are better compensated than people who are not. Money may not be everything, but it still provides a lot of fringe benefits - like the ability to ER. The same is true with LBYM/savings. Saving 50% of pretax income - like you do - is neither good nor bad. But it has consequences. These consequences may be negative in the near-term (e.g., can't buy the latest toys) but are positive in the long-term (e.g., the ability to ER). In general, the ability to ER results from a lifetime of reasonable choices. It has little if anything to do with being a Boomer or a Millennial.

To be fair there is a similar discussion on MMM about this...

Enough with this "millenial" bullshit!


And one "idea" stood out in particular to me. When working 9-5 =2% raise while busting your ass and working 60-70 hours = 3% raise and job hopping = 15% raises why should I bother working more than the middle of the road? Clearly in today's world hard work is often not proportionally rewarded and without something like a pension to tie you down its often better to just move onto greener pastures than bother to be a true rockstar at any one company. Granted if you have no talents 2% is the best you can hope for but if you have in demand skills get the experience and move on, 1% raise be damned when there's 15%+ potential at play on the open market.

Are millenials lazy or have they just seen past the false stories of promised rewards by a company tomorrow and instead want the guaranteed reward today, which more often than not are better than the promises of something tomorrow...

[rodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greencheese And one "idea" stood out in particular to me. When working 9-5 =2% raise while busting your ass and working 60-70 hours = 3% raise and job hopping = 15% raises why should I bother working more than the middle of the road?

To true. After raises were canceled during the downturn (2008 or 2009) I had a coworker ask (with full deadpan face and delivery) "Exactly how much unpaid overtime do we have to work to lock in our 0% raises?" It was telling because we'd been in a super push to get a product out - working lots of weekends/late nights... and the 0% annual increase was a slap in the face. The manager didn't have any idea how to respond. Folks in the room didn't know how to respond. I started applauding - because I thought it was a good question.

Most of us were older than millennials but we quickly learned that quality of live might be more important than unpaid, unappreciated extra effort. Management had a hard time firing us up to do more than a 2 week "crunch" after that.

Aubry - if you're out there... I commend you.

[scrabbler1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulligan Nothing is sillier than the label slapped on me....I was born in 1964 and thus labeled a "baby boomer". At best I should be labeled the next one, whichever it is. My dad was not even in high school when the War ended. So yes, I agree they are silly. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Same here. I was born in 1963 and my dad was born in 1931 and was not nearly old enough to have served in WWII. The first time I heard the term "baby boom" was decades ago and the full name of the term was "Post-War Baby Boom" referring to the huge number of babies born to couples whose male had just returned from the War, got married, and had kids, mainly in the late 1940s and through the 1950s.

One thing the Millennials are doing differently from previous generations is delaying or deciding against having children. I guess they are so busy staring into their SmartPhones or living in their parents' basements they have less interest in dating or starting families?!?!

[Totoro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrabbler1 One thing the Millennials are doing differently from previous generations is delaying or deciding against having children. I guess they are so busy staring into their SmartPhones or living in their parents' basements they have less interest in dating or starting families?!?!

Children are a financial liability with a very steep and ever increasing sticker price, also in quality of life. They used to be an asset.

So most motivated women wait until they feel secure in an increasingly insecure environment (e.g. financial / job wise). That takes a while. Some never get there.

Interest in dating drops off also because both men and women are increasingly untrained to give the other what they want out of a pairing, the associated rewards are much smaller than they used to be, and the social stigma of a failed pairing has almost vanished.

So both look at the other side and ask themselves: Why? And many don't like the product as advertised, so decide not to buy.

*gets off horse*

[hnzw_rui]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrabbler1 One thing the Millennials are doing differently from previous generations is delaying or deciding against having children. I guess they are so busy staring into their SmartPhones or living in their parents' basements they have less interest in dating or starting families?!?!

Children are expensive. Divorce/alimony plus child support even more so.

[kgtest]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcowan I think these people will adapt to their environment, benefit from technology, and come out just fine. Just look at how the people of Europe have adapted. The problem arises when meddling parents like us try to "improve their lives" based on our standards. My youngest just sold his second car because with Uber and smart sharing of parental responsibilities, they can flourish with just one. Plus they are determined to walk everywhere, including the gym.

This made me chuckle. I recall when my 4yr older sister sold their car as she works from home and they were certain they wouldn't need it.

Then they started borrowing my dad's car, then they started asking to use my car on the weekend, and now they bought a second car, a Prius. Not sure how much they saved doubling down on sales tax for two new vehicles, only to sell one of them. We live in MN where its cold and cars are almost required unless you want to freeze to death walking.

[kcowan]

Yes my son is in a walkable neighbourhood of downtown Toronto called The Beach. And the streetcar/bus service is great. Having private parking for only one car was also a factor.

(We lived on an acreage with a 3-car attached garage and plenty of outdoor private parking before we came to our senses.)

[Shawn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greencheese Are millenials lazy or have they just seen past the false stories of promised rewards by a company tomorrow and instead want the guaranteed reward today, which more often than not are better than the promises of something tomorrow...

I don't believe they are false promises. In general, employees who dedicate themselves to their jobs/careers receive (significantly) higher compensation than those who don't.

The typical 9/5 employee at my company has received an average annual raise of about 4% over the past 25 years (3% due to generic wage growth or inflation, and 1% due to career growth or merit). I've received an average raise of 6+% during my 25 year career. This is primarily because I work 60 hours/week on a regular basis. This is not a trite claim. It is a reality.

My additional 2% every year may not sound like much but it compounds. It means I now earn about 60% more than the average employee with similar work experience (and my company has a relatively flat salary structure). We have a pension. This means that the average employee must work about 15 more years than me to have a similar annual pension payout. If I retire at 60, they must work until 75. Even ignoring the pension and incorporating other factors such as taxes, the numbers do not change very much.

My hard work has put me way ahead - 15 years ahead. I would not be where I am today if I regularly worked 9/5.

The point is that retirement - let alone early retirement - is enabled by choices. One choice is to work hard and focus on a career. Another choice is to save/LBYM. A third choice is to make common sense investment decisions. This is true for everyone, not just Millennials.

I don't buy the argument that a Millennial (or anyone), in general, "needs" to work until age 75. It is a choice to work 9/5. It is a choice to buy the latest smart phone or the latest toy. It is a choice to invest all savings in a zero-risk bank money market account earning 0.1%. These choices aren't necessarily bad. But they have consequences. It is why some people can retire early, and other people cannot.

[MasterBlaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn This is primarily because I work 60 hours/week on a regular basis. My additional 2% every year may not sound like much but it compounds. It means I now earn about 60% more than the average employee with similar work experience (and my company has a relatively flat salary structure)

60% more money for 60 hours a week or 50% more hours at work than the average person. After taxes, I would suggest that you lost somewhat. Your after tax rate per hour worked is less than the average Joe.

Yes you received more money and recognition but you gave up your life.

Millenials and myself look at people like you and wonder.... Is it really worth it ? Where did your life go ?

[kombat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totoro Children are a financial liability with a very steep and ever increasing sticker price, also in quality of life. They used to be an asset.

Funny you should mention that. I agree. My wife and I decided long ago not to have kids, and just this past Friday, I made the decision permanent and got "snipped." We're both 40, so more Generation X than Millennials, but I never saw the appeal. Kids look like an expensive, exhausting, thankless endeavour, and for what payoff? A few "Kodak" moments here and there? Societal expectations are changing such that couples like my wife and I are no longer ostracized for our refusal to procreate. I firmly believe it's also strengthened our marriage by removing the aggravating factor of demanding children. We're free to focus on each other and just enjoy being together, just the two of us.

[hnzw_rui]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn The typical 9/5 employee at my company has received an average annual raise of about 4% over the past 25 years (3% due to generic wage growth or inflation, and 1% due to career growth or merit). I've received an average raise of 6+% during my 25 year career. This is primarily because I work 60 hours/week on a regular basis. This is not a trite claim. It is a reality. My hard work has put me way ahead - 15 years ahead. I would not be where I am today if I regularly worked 9/5.

Hmm...

25 years * 52 weeks * 60 work hours = 78,000 work hours

40 years * 52 weeks * 40 work hours = 83,200 work hours

Difference: 5,200 work hours (or ~2.5 "work years")

[MasterBlaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hnzw_rui Hmm... 25 years * 52 weeks * 60 work hours = 78,000 work hours 40 years * 52 weeks * 40 work hours = 83,200 work hours Difference: 5,200 work hours (or ~2.5 "work years")

HNZW:

It's not clear where you stand on the long hours thing...

I just don't buy this run as fast as you can now thing, so that you can rest later. You are only young once.

FWIW, if you include progressive taxation in your example the later case will come out way ahead.

[hnzw_rui]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster HNZW: It's not clear where you stand on the long hours thing... I just don't buy this run as fast as you can now thing, so that you can rest later. You are only young once. FWIW, if you include progressive taxation in your example the later case will come out way ahead.

That was just an objective comparison.

Personally, unless I'm getting 1.5x compensation for overtime hours (and even then, I often decline), I'm sticking to 40-hr work weeks. Heck, we're continuing to rent an apartment (less than 5 miles from work) and decided not to buy a house 20 miles away (where we could afford to buy) when the housing market was down because I consider the longer commute (in SoCal traffic) unpaid overtime.

[Greencheese]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn I don't believe they are false promises. In general, employees who dedicate themselves to their jobs/careers receive (significantly) higher compensation than those who don't. The typical 9/5 employee at my company has received an average annual raise of about 4% over the past 25 years (3% due to generic wage growth or inflation, and 1% due to career growth or merit). I've received an average raise of 6+% during my 25 year career. This is primarily because I work 60 hours/week on a regular basis. This is not a trite claim. It is a reality. My additional 2% every year may not sound like much but it compounds. It means I now earn about 60% more than the average employee with similar work experience (and my company has a relatively flat salary structure). We have a pension. This means that the average employee must work about 15 more years than me to have a similar annual pension payout. If I retire at 60, they must work until 75. Even ignoring the pension and incorporating other factors such as taxes, the numbers do not change very much. My hard work has put me way ahead - 15 years ahead. I would not be where I am today if I regularly worked 9/5. The point is that retirement - let alone early retirement - is enabled by choices. One choice is to work hard and focus on a career. Another choice is to save/LBYM. A third choice is to make common sense investment decisions. This is true for everyone, not just Millennials. I don't buy the argument that a Millennial (or anyone), in general, "needs" to work until age 75. It is a choice to work 9/5. It is a choice to buy the latest smart phone or the latest toy. It is a choice to invest all savings in a zero-risk bank money market account earning 0.1%. These choices aren't necessarily bad. But they have consequences. It is why some people can retire early, and other people cannot.

Shawn, we're talking about 2 totally different scenarios. My argument is based on a lack of pensions and the ability to job hop while your own experience is one of pensions where job hopping is not a possibility. Loyalty is rewarded in the pensioned world while it's not in the 401k world. Millennials aren't going to be loyal when the benefits of loyalty aren't offered to them.

It seems to be a common theme of people at least knowing someone who has been promised a promotion or big raise in exchange for working more than a typical workweek for months or years on end only to never get the reward or get a reward not reflective of the additional work required. If so many people get apparently screwed constantly, why would I believe my experience would be any different? I'll take my easy meets rating, forgo 50% more work for a 20% higher annual raise, and then hop companies for 15% more compensation once I vest. Sure I'd make a little less today, but I get a far better work life balance and then even more money by refusing to remain loyal to a company that isn't paying what the apparent market rate is for my skill set.