Millennial's growing poorer

Real Estate Agent · Sisters, OR · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes

Listening to people beat up on the young folks for having their student loans paid off. Look at this people born between 81 and 96 are getting poorer while the rest of us are getting richer. What this is really saying is people who own assets like real estate are getting wealthier and people with no assets are finding less and less opportunity. I imagine any group whether it be blacks, hispanic, whatever that had a disproportionately lower share of assets is getting disproportionatley poorer. Yes, buy real estate and cash-flowing assets, but next time you are complaining about a kid having their stupid transgender studies loan paid off be considerate of the fact this kid does not have the opportunities of the generations before him. And as mighty and righteous as you are maybe don't lecture these millennials quite as much about how hard you had it and all the jobs you had when you were 12 years old, they didn't invent helicopter parenting they are the victims of it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...

31 Reply

421 views

Most Popular Reply

Scott TrenchPro Member

Rental Property Investor · Denver, CO · Member since 2014 · 2k+ posts · 6k+ votes

I believe that this data is about 8 years out of date. Millennial wealth has been skyrocketing, especially in the last few years. And, I believe Millennials are in great position to benefit from the economic realities that are ahead of us (in a relative sense).

Millennials are benefitting disproportionately from the great resignation. Millenial's net worth has doubled since the start of the pandemic.

Lower asset values mean that higher millennial paychecks buy a greater share of GDP per capita.

Fed policy of easy money ballooned asset values for the older generations over the past 10 years. That's coming to an end and was the real insidious evil that kept millennials down and ballooned inequality. Jerome Powell will inflict pain on everyone, but millennials will be hurt the least as they are entering their prime earnings years, finally getting out of debt, and will be able to buy assets in a period of higher interest rates and lower real asset values - an economy that is more "sane" than the one we just experienced for the last 5-7 years.

Older generations, particularly boomers, are exiting their prime earnings years. They must spend that wealth at some point. And the providers of those goods and services will be millennials.

None of this really addresses your point, which seems to be to sympathize with student loan forgiveness. I think that's a tricky issue. I think it's great for the folks who receive the forgiveness, and a bit unfair to taxpayers who repaid similar loans or who did not receive a college education. I don't think people will ever agree on this one.

One thing that I do think will be a benefit from the student loan debate, is that it seems that both sides can clearly agree that student loans are inflicting terrible damage on millions of individuals and society at large.

We need to stop giving them out. And significantly reform them. If we care about this problem enough to spend $300B to forgive debts for current borrowers, surely we care enough about the next generation to prevent them from taking on unreasonable student loan debt the next time around?

My vote:

1) End all federal student loan programs, privatizing the student loan market

2) Establish usury protections for borrowers (can't allow a 17/18 year old to get completely swindled as a "welcome to adulthood...")

3) Allow student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy. Eliminate that exemption.

Within a few years, or perhaps overnight, the 80/20 of the absurdities in higher education would be eliminated. Tuition would plummet, worthless degrees would cease to exist (because no sane lender is giving an 18 year old $100K to study "fashion design" if that student can declare bankruptcy), colleges would eliminate the focus on "experience" classes would be harder, tens or hundreds of thousands of administrative positions at colleges would be eliminated, and ROI would be carefully considered by students, parents, lenders, and colleges.

Podcast Guest on Show #223

47 Reply

See this reply in the discussion

200 Replies

Jump to latestLatest

Sort by

Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
4y
Quote from @Charles Clark:

Quote from @Susan Maneck:

I would not say I was an extraordinary student, far from it, yet I had no difficulty in getting enough aid that I could work on the side during school and graduate without loans.
Are you a Millennial or Gen-Z? Because if you are any older than that then you went to college went it was much cheaper and financial aid much greater. State legislatures got out of the business of subsidizing their institutions of higher learning which is what created the present situation.

Oh yes, I am definitely a Millennial or Gen-Z. Depends somewhat on where demographers are drawing the line, but I could be in either camp depending on definition. That said, I avoid calling myself a Millennial because it is a pejorative term.
And trust me, I know college is not cheap. When I started college the estimated cost for 4 years from the financial aid office at my university (inclusive of all expenses) was something like $280k. But to your point I am not far removed from the present situation.

I put my daughter through the university of CA Davis for 50k all in 4 year degree in managerial economics she graduated in 2002 with a 3.95 GPA got offers from Micro Intel and a few others took Intel job and has been there ever since and is now in senior management and a Dave Ramsey disciple :) Best 50k I ever spent.. She worked for her spending money though as an intern for a high end Appraisal company working on Eminent Domain cases.
Podcast Guest on Show #222
JLH Capital Partners51 Review
Website View Page
1 Reply
Eric Bilderback
OP
Real Estate Agent · Sisters, OR · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
4y
Quote from @Charles Clark:

Quote from @Eric Bilderback:

Quote from @Charles Clark:

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

Quote from @Charles Clark:

Great point...Our neighbor to the north comes to mind there......

And to be clear, this is not a blame or "they did not pay their share" arrangement, its just a tacit recognition that post WWII the US took up the job of defending the "developed" world and spent tens of trillions of dollars to do so for the last 8 decades. Europe, etc. got to spend heavily on whatever social programs they wanted. Had we not done this Europe would basically be a garrison state, assuming they were not speaking Russian.

@Bruce Woodruff
We protect Europe, invade countries in the Middle East, require our young folks go to war in order to keep the petro-dollar system going. It lets Americans produce next to nothing and be the richest nation in the world, materially anyway.

No one has been "required" to go to war since Vietnam, which had nothing to do with the petro-dollar and everything to do with making our assurances to Europe credible.
However the de-industrialization of the US benefited Japan and Germany so perhaps add that to the ways in which we have subsidized their systems.

I didn't say anyone was being drafted I said we are sending young people, which we are. It has everything to do with us maintaining the dollar as the worlds reserve currency, and ensuring that there is no one power that dominates the Eurasian continent. Which the current President seems to have muddled beyond belief on both accounts. I will stop here because I am getting way off target. LOL
0 Reply
Susan Maneck
Investor · Jackson, MS · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 769 votes
4y
Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

Quote from @Susan Maneck:

Only one country has ever invoked Article 5 of NATO's mutual defense treaty and it wasn't Canada. In fact, Canada came to our defense when we invoked on 9-11.

That's not the point either. We spend $800 Bil a year on our military. They spend only $20 Bil. If we weren't providing the safety net for them, imagine what they would have to spend. Oooops, there goes their precious yet highly overrated National HealthCare......
Why would they need to spend more? No one is threatening them. You're deluding yourself that they need our protection.
0 Reply
Susan Maneck
Investor · Jackson, MS · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 769 votes
4y

Had we not spent that money, these nations would either be bankrupt garrison states or speaking Russian.
Sorry, but that is pure speculation. Under Stalin and his successors, Russia was only interested in buffer states. It was the Trotskyites who wanted to spread communism everywhere.
0 Reply
Charles Clark
Member since 2022 · 36 posts · 26 votes
4y
Quote from @Susan Maneck:

Had we not spent that money, these nations would either be bankrupt garrison states or speaking Russian.
Sorry, but that is pure speculation. Under Stalin and his successors, Russia was only interested in buffer states. It was the Trotskyites who wanted to spread communism everywhere.

"pure speculation" yes, I am sure all of Europe would have been content to sit, unarmed, next to the likes of Stalin with tens of millions of men in the Red Army and the Atomic Bomb.
This theory is easily disproved by the fact that even with the US as an umbrella the English and especially the French spent significant amounts on their own weapons programmes out of a fear we might abandon them.
As to Stalin being interested in buffer states only, that is quite simply wrong. The Soviet Union made the spread of Communism a goal from the revolution until very late in its existence. The "buffer states priority" you are referring to was a temporal matter for Stalin after WWII while he was trying to recover from a grievous invasion. The whole "perfect communism in the Soviet Union first" line was always deceptive, as demonstrated by significant Soviet involvement in other nations from the 30's onward to promote their agenda. Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.
And even if we buy this "buffer states only" theory it still has the issue that there is no such thing as too much buffer state. Early overtures and planning were supposed to allow some buffer to the USSR, but when Stalin found opportunity to grab more he took everything he could get. And what he could get would have been quite a bit more without the US.
0 Reply
Charles Clark
Member since 2022 · 36 posts · 26 votes
4y
Quote from @Susan Maneck:

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

Quote from @Susan Maneck:

Only one country has ever invoked Article 5 of NATO's mutual defense treaty and it wasn't Canada. In fact, Canada came to our defense when we invoked on 9-11.

That's not the point either. We spend $800 Bil a year on our military. They spend only $20 Bil. If we weren't providing the safety net for them, imagine what they would have to spend. Oooops, there goes their precious yet highly overrated National HealthCare......
Why would they need to spend more? No one is threatening them. You're deluding yourself that they need our protection.

"No one is threatening them"
Tell that to Ukraine.
And don't think that because the others are in NATO they are magically ok, the Baltic States and Poland would very much disagree with your statement.
1 Reply
Susan Maneck
Investor · Jackson, MS · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 769 votes
4y

"pure speculation" yes, I am sure all of Europe would have been content to sit, unarmed, next to the likes of Stalin with tens of millions of men in the Red Army and the Atomic Bomb.

This theory is easily disproved by the fact that even with the US as an umbrella the English and especially the French spent significant amounts on their own weapons programmes out of a fear we might abandon them.
As to Stalin being interested in buffer states only, that is quite simply wrong. The Soviet Union made the spread of Communism a goal from the revolution until very late in its existence.
The fact Stalin was after buffer states, is not a theory, it is history. Of course we didn't believe it neither did Britain or France but it is what the historical record shows. And the fact other European countries developed their own nuclear weapons shows they were not depending on the US.
0 Reply
Billy Daniel
Rental Property Investor · Russellville, AR · Member since 2014 · 684 posts · 509 votes
4y
I think the student loan forgiveness was a great idea. I also think it was terribly executed and an obvious political stunt. The underlying issue has not been fixed. RE Investors like to shake their head at 2006 when you "just needed a pulse" to get a mortgage. How are student loans any different today? 18 with no work history? Sure! Take this $20,000 loan for school! No, we don't care what your major is. Don't worry about it, you won't have to pay this back for YEARS!
I would argue the vast majority of high school seniors have no idea what they are signing up for when they apply for this "tuition assistance". They surely didn't learn about it in public school. The parents may or may not be any help. They've been told their entire lives up to this point "you can do whatever you want" and "follow your dreams". Not really sage advice when staring into the void of adulthood.
And before the haters pile on, my tuition was paid for with the GI Bill. No, I do not believe that is a great option for 99% of the kids today. My wife had $35k in student loans when we married and we paid it off Dave Ramsey style. I am not angry nor do I think it's unfair that we had to pay while others do not. A rising tide lifts all ships.
5 Reply
James Freeman
Member since 2022 · 7 posts · 3 votes
4y
Quote from @Susan Maneck:

"pure speculation" yes, I am sure all of Europe would have been content to sit, unarmed, next to the likes of Stalin with tens of millions of men in the Red Army and the Atomic Bomb.

This theory is easily disproved by the fact that even with the US as an umbrella the English and especially the French spent significant amounts on their own weapons programmes out of a fear we might abandon them.
As to Stalin being interested in buffer states only, that is quite simply wrong. The Soviet Union made the spread of Communism a goal from the revolution until very late in its existence.
The fact Stalin was after buffer states, is not a theory, it is history. Of course we didn't believe it neither did Britain or France but it is what the historical record shows. And the fact other European countries developed their own nuclear weapons shows they were not depending on the US.

This is off-topic, let's get back on topic, please.
1 Reply
Bruce WoodruffPro Member
Contractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votes
4y
Quote from @Billy Daniel:

Sure! Take this $20,000 loan for school! No, we don't care what your major is. Don't worry about it, you won't have to pay this back for YEARS!
I would argue the vast majority of high school seniors have no idea what they are signing up for when they apply for this "tuition assistance".
On the one hand, I agree that these loans are somewhat predatory. On the other hand, once you're 18, you need to understand some basics of life.....i.e., you take money from other people you pay it back.
0 Reply
Eric Bilderback
OP
Real Estate Agent · Sisters, OR · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
4y
@Susan Maneck
Is that Chopsky's take? I agree we should not debate this on the platform but I think they were more ambitious the killing just the over 20 million or so people in Russia and Eastern Europe. I will leave it at that but many historians, etc vehemently disagree with that.
1 Reply
Martin LaBelle
Rental Property Investor · Sanford, NC · Member since 2017 · 39 posts · 35 votes
4y
There are a lot of angles to this, and I can see sound arguments and narratives flowing in good faith from both sides. Here is my two cents, its a small issue, but it is solvable, puts a dent in the problem, and makes good sense to me.

The G.I. Bill should not have a time limit. A military service member should be able to use their educational entitlement at any point in their life. It's not a loan, it's a benefit they earned. Many veterans never use their educational bill because they have to grind and provide immediately after leaving the military. Many GI bill entitlements expire after 10-15 years, right when most service members with a family would be able to use it.

The military is a great option for people needing to jump start their financial life, it's how I became an investor.

The great wealth of the western world is guarded and made possible by humans who raise their hand and sign a blank check (which could mean their life). They should not receive a dated check in return.
4 Reply
Bruce WoodruffPro Member
Contractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votes
4y
@Martin LaBelle Great points...the GI bill is not even comparable to student loans. It should be open for use forever.
1 Reply
Bruce WoodruffPro Member
Contractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votes
4y
@Eric Bilderback Yeah, your thread got hijacked, man..... next we'll be talking about the real definition of fascism... 🤣
3 Reply
Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
4y
Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

@Eric Bilderback Yeah, your thread got hijacked, man..... next we'll be talking about the real definition of fascism... 🤣

some of the best discussions on BP come from highjacking.. I have enjoyed the history lesson personally.
Podcast Guest on Show #222
JLH Capital Partners51 Review
Website View Page
1 Reply
Charles Clark
Member since 2022 · 36 posts · 26 votes
4y
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

@Eric Bilderback Yeah, your thread got hijacked, man..... next we'll be talking about the real definition of fascism... 🤣

some of the best discussions on BP come from highjacking.. I have enjoyed the history lesson personally.

Hijacking is an intentional act to derail something, its different than ending up off course because conversations naturally flow in different directions. The latter is sometimes an informative process.
0 Reply
Bruce WoodruffPro Member
Contractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votes
4y
Quote from @Charles Clark:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

@Eric Bilderback Yeah, your thread got hijacked, man..... next we'll be talking about the real definition of fascism... 🤣

some of the best discussions on BP come from highjacking.. I have enjoyed the history lesson personally.

Hijacking is an intentional act to derail something, its different than ending up off course because conversations naturally flow in different directions. The latter is sometimes an informative process.

Not disagreeing, but when a thread goes off track, it is just referred to as 'hijacked'. Just a matter of parlance....
0 Reply
Eric Bilderback
OP
Real Estate Agent · Sisters, OR · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
4y
If I said anything it would be the pot calling the kettle black. Lol
0 Reply
Carlos Ptriawan
Member since 2019 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes
4y
Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

Quote from @Billy Daniel:

Sure! Take this $20,000 loan for school! No, we don't care what your major is. Don't worry about it, you won't have to pay this back for YEARS!
I would argue the vast majority of high school seniors have no idea what they are signing up for when they apply for this "tuition assistance".
On the one hand, I agree that these loans are somewhat predatory. On the other hand, once you're 18, you need to understand some basics of life.....i.e., you take money from other people you pay it back.

In the last six months, I personally advised someone not to take master's degree in London for UX study for one year, because the loan is like $90K just for tuition only. They will be guaranteed to have to pay this debt for years while their family already filed for bankruptcy a decade ago. This master's degree even in tech doesn't really add value.

Almost all loans are predatory. For someone that has zero education cost for myself and my family, I guess I could say 'there are crazy people out there' because there're (predatory) loan for them.
1 Reply
Eliott Elias
Investor · Austin, TX · Member since 2021 · 9k+ posts · 5k+ votes
4y
Real estate before and in the future will always give you what you put in to it. If the hustle, motivation, and determination is there it does now matter who you are or when you started. There’s no advantages or disadvantages
1 Reply
Theresa HarrisPro Member
Member since 2019 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes
4y
Quote from @Eliott Elias:

Real estate before and in the future will always give you what you put in to it. If the hustle, motivation, and determination is there it does now matter who you are or when you started. There’s no advantages or disadvantages

I think this is true of anything, not just real estate. Some times luck plays a role, but with hard work you can get ahead over time.
0 Reply
Bruce WoodruffPro Member
Contractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votes
4y
Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

I think these student loans 'may' be because the people taking them on are only 18 or so, with no experience and not very smart (smart as opposed to intelligent).
However, I don't think something can be called predatory when it is accepted freely with full knowledge and choice.....
0 Reply
Theresa HarrisPro Member
Member since 2019 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes
4y
Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

Quote from @Billy Daniel:

Sure! Take this $20,000 loan for school! No, we don't care what your major is. Don't worry about it, you won't have to pay this back for YEARS!
I would argue the vast majority of high school seniors have no idea what they are signing up for when they apply for this "tuition assistance".
On the one hand, I agree that these loans are somewhat predatory. On the other hand, once you're 18, you need to understand some basics of life.....i.e., you take money from other people you pay it back.

In the last six months, I personally advised someone not to take master's degree in London for UX study for one year, because the loan is like $90K just for tuition only. They will be guaranteed to have to pay this debt for years while their family already filed for bankruptcy a decade ago. This master's degree even in tech doesn't really add value.

Almost all loans are predatory. For someone that has zero education cost for myself and my family, I guess I could say 'there are crazy people out there' because there're (predatory) loan for them.

Too many people go on to postsecondary education who shouldn't. A lot of degrees are not needed for jobs especially when people go into so much debt for a degree that has nothing to do with their job. I say this as someone who went to university, but I was fortunate enough to work, save and get scholarships to pay for it. Still by the time I finished my last degree, other than a house that was paid for (which is not insignificant-thank you tenants), I didn't have a whole lot of money in my bank account.
1 Reply
Carlos Ptriawan
Member since 2019 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes
4y
Quote from @Billy Daniel:

I think the student loan forgiveness was a great idea. I also think it was terribly executed and an obvious political stunt. The underlying issue has not been fixed. RE Investors like to shake their head at 2006 when you "just needed a pulse" to get a mortgage. How are student loans any different today? 18 with no work history? Sure! Take this $20,000 loan for school! No, we don't care what your major is. Don't worry about it, you won't have to pay this back for YEARS!
I would argue the vast majority of high school seniors have no idea what they are signing up for when they apply for this "tuition assistance". They surely didn't learn about it in public school. The parents may or may not be any help. They've been told their entire lives up to this point "you can do whatever you want" and "follow your dreams". Not really sage advice when staring into the void of adulthood.
I've been saying the same for years.
My personal opinion is It's very scary for 18 years old to start having a college loan for something that may not be useful, if useful (degree) then go ahead. The kid is then thinking they can do anything since they could get education/car/house loan anytime. But since it's the game in town what can I do; I personally would never ever take a loan. Parents can just use FSA and real estate income to offset all the education cost.

0 Reply
Susan Maneck
Investor · Jackson, MS · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 769 votes
4y

On the one hand, I agree that these loans are somewhat predatory. On the other hand, once you're 18, you need to understand some basics of life.....i.e., you take money from other people you pay it back.
Normally we don't loan tens of thousands of dollars to teenagers. And any other debt can be discharged in bankruptcy. Why do we expect more from teenagers than we do from older adults?
0 Reply

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.