This article was written by a college student by the name of Alyssa Ahlgren, who's in grad school for her MBA.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/f...perity-around-us/amp

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse...=6612728928601690113

My Generation Is Blind to the Prosperity Around Us!

I'm sitting in a small coffee shop near Lake Nokomis (Mpls) trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of Democratic candidates calling for policies to "fix" the so-called injustices of capitalism.

I put my phone down and continue to look around. I see people talking freely, working on their MacBook's, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me. We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we've become completely blind to it. Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose. These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don't give them a second thought.

We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty. One. Times. Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful.

Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, "An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity."

Never saw American prosperity! Let that sink in. When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I've ever heard in my 26 years on this earth. Many young people agree with her, which is entirely misguided. My generation is being indoctrinated by a mainstream narrative to actually believe we have never seen prosperity. I know this first hand, I went to college, let's just say I didn't have the popular opinion, but I digress.

Why then, with all of the overwhelming evidence around us, evidence that I can even see sitting at a coffee shop, do we not view this as prosperity? We have people who are dying to get into our country. People around the world destitute and truly impoverished. Yet, we have a young generation convinced they've never seen prosperity, and as a result, elect politicians dead set on taking steps towards abolishing capitalism.

Why? The answer is this, my generation has only seen prosperity. We have no contrast. We didn't live in the great depression, or live through two world wars, the Korean War, The Vietnam War or see the rise and fall of socialism and communism. We don't know what it's like to live without the internet, without cars, without smartphones. We don't have a lack of prosperity problem. We have an entitlement problem, an ungratefulness problem, and it's spreading like a plague."

Way tooooo true.

I agree with the author, and disagree as well.

Household items/consumables/food/transportation are all at easily or moderately attainable prices, which is good.

Real estate and education, however, are at absurd levels that prior generations didn’t face. I speak as one of the better-off millennials, who also paid for an MBA and is a homeowner.

That is a problem, and is driven by basic economics and scarcity (population growth + immigration + excess money chasing yield). In other words, she is right… and she is wrong.

Link to housing inflation chart - image was massive on mobile

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
Real estate and education, however, are at absurd levels that prior generations didn’t face.

That is a problem, and is driven by basic economics and scarcity (population growth + immigration + excess money chasing yield). In other words, she is right… and she is wrong.

I think it is your perspective that may be wrong. There's a reason both are more expensive than previously. The government has been involved, which increases the costs all around (those same people that she talks about getting elected and re-elected). Add to the fact that most houses 40 years ago didn't come equipped with A/C. Hell, even 20 years ago it was an additional cost but now you won't find a new build without it. Code changes? That costs money too. As for college? Why are so many choosing to go to a 4 year right out of HS? Don't people understand that knocking out 100/200 level classes at a JC cost considerably less than at a major school? Add in that most could probably live with mom & dad to save even more money further reducing how much school costs.

Previous generations also weren't addicted to their devices...meaning a high school student in 1980 didn't spend their life savings on a new phone/gaming system/and additional periphery every other year. Sure, they had expenses but I think they were better equipped to moderate their spending as compared to kids now. I'll bet that if you look in most high school kids bedrooms you'll see close to $5000 worth of electronics and that won't include what's been traded in on "upgrades or newer games". Gaming consoles, cellphones, televisions, computers, tablets and all their accessories add up quick, never mind most kids wardrobes include multiple pairs of $200 Nike's. Parents not thinking about their (or their kids) financial futures will undoubtedly be in a rougher spot when it comes time to spend on college. Sure school costs more nowadays, but if parents (and kids) started investing in education earlier with that same money, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad. Getting a shitty useless degree will never help a person reach the income levels required to purchase housing either.


Getting back to the governments involvement in the inflated prices: Guaranteed money has steadily increased the costs of both housing and school. Take the .gov out of real estate and education and watch how quickly the market corrects itself. It would be funny as hell to watch how quickly dorms go back to having basic amenities, shared showers, and only core classes being taught within the schools walls. No money for gender studies and other non-essential nonsense. Excess faculty and bloated budgets would get pared down quickly.


So I guess you're right with your assertion that those 2 items specifically are more expensive, but it's artificial.

Completely agree, mutedblade. I should have mentioned the government involvement, as that is the key factor as well (for education). Housing, as you mentioned, is a bit more difficult to unpack, as it’s driven by interest rates, government policy, scarcity, home size, code changes, and the other factors mentioned above.


Whether artificial or not, the fact exists that they are both much more expensive, on price-adjusted terms, than the past.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
Guaranteed money has steadily increased the costs of both housing and school.

This is what should be one of the most glaringly obvious economic facts of all, but is evidently the least-recognized. Henry Hazlitt predicted it about housing in the book Economics in One Lesson which was first published in 1946! I suspect he never imagined that something like the student loans program would ever exist, but if he had, he certainly would have added it to his warnings about such programs’ hugely inflationary effects on the cost of products and services.

When we have a lot of something like money that we didn’t have to work hard (or at all) to get, it’s human nature to not value it very highly. Most students have no idea about what spending all that money on education they got for free will mean to them in the long run, and therefore they don’t really care. Either that, or they have wildly unreasonable ideas about how their “education” will pay them back.

We have contests where people see how much they can eat, but we're a poor nation.

Mutedblade makes a great point. In the 1950s, many Americans raised five kids in a 1200 sq ft house. By the 1990s, nobody would consider building a free standing house less than 2000 sq ft. Now it seems like most new free standing homes in my area begin at 3300 sq ft. If you want something smaller, you have to buy a townhouse or build it yourself.

Well, what are they taught in school? Everybody is miserable or guilty. I don't think they teach the misery of the past(except slavery) so today looks bad without perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
By the 1990s, nobody would consider building a free standing house less than 2000 sq ft. Now it seems like most new free standing homes in my area begin at 3300 sq ft. If you want something smaller, you have to buy a townhouse or build it yourself.

That's very dependent on location. Around here, 1600-1900 square feet is normal for new suburban houses.

And personally, having gone from a 2600 sq. ft. house to an 1800 sq. ft. one last year, I much prefer the smaller one.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
By the 1990s, nobody would consider building a free standing house less than 2000 sq ft. Now it seems like most new free standing homes in my area begin at 3300 sq ft. If you want something smaller, you have to buy a townhouse or build it yourself.

That's very dependent on location. Around here, 1600-1900 square feet is normal for new suburban houses.

And personally, having gone from a 2600 sq. ft. house to an 1800 sq. ft. one last year, I much prefer the smaller one.

That square footage is normal around me also, and I also prefer something less than 2,000 sq. ft.

I don't want to pay for it, I don't want to maintain it, I don't want to clean it and I don't want to pay taxes on it as it's a lot more room than 2 people and a dog need.

Regarding real estate and for lack of a better term standard of living even compared to growing up in the 1970’s/ early 80’s like I did.
Back then families with multiple vehicles air conditioning or homes with more than one bath were rare. Siblings sharing rooms was the standard rather than the exception like it is today.
People didn’t jet off for vacations in Hawaii or Europe they rented a cabin went camping or simpler vacations to driving distance destinations with airline travel rare.
In the context of our gun ownership, people didn’t own multiple guns for the heck of it.
Browning up we had one rimfire rifle and one center fire and one shotgun. Once into handguns, a single 22 a center fire full size and a carry gun were about it.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
I agree with the author, and disagree as well.

Household items/consumables/food/transportation are all at easily or moderately attainable prices, which is good.

Real estate and education, however, are at absurd levels that prior generations didn’t face. I speak as one of the better-off millennials, who also paid for an MBA and is a homeowner.

That is a problem, and is driven by basic economics and scarcity (population growth + immigration + excess money chasing yield). In other words, she is right… and she is wrong.

Link to housing inflation chart - image was massive on mobile

Re: Real Estate, -- as you said, scarcity. I can tell you where I live you can get a starter home in a safe neighborhood for $100k. That's about what I paid ($80k) in the early 1990s for my first.

Re: Education, I agree. (and I'll add healthcare). But in both, it's a high component input of highly educated labor COMBINED with an increasing demand of improved services. College in 2021 ain't college in 1981, that's for damn sure. Most we've been visiting pitch European "learning trips" in the first informational session. And healthcare? I have what was once a crippling disease and/or a death sentence. And I only remember I have it when I have to go in for a checkup. And even that I do through a virtual visit in my patient portal that also gives me instant access to providers, and all of my medical records.

The only thing we don't have that our parents had was a clear future of freedom without socialism. And even that, sadly (for them) was an illusion.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
I agree with the author, and disagree as well.

Household items/consumables/food/transportation are all at easily or moderately attainable prices, which is good.

Real estate and education, however, are at absurd levels that prior generations didn’t face. I speak as one of the better-off millennials, who also paid for an MBA and is a homeowner.

That is a problem, and is driven by basic economics and scarcity (population growth + immigration + excess money chasing yield). In other words, she is right… and she is wrong.

Link to housing inflation chart - image was massive on mobile

I was watching the Andy Griffith show the other day - the episode where Barney decides to try to sell real estate. Andy was going to sell his house for $2,500 and buy a nicer house for $3,500. He was going to get a mortgage from the local bank to make up the difference...

I wonder what the terms for the mortgage would be? Let's see, $1,000 on a 30 year mortgage would be $2.77 a month, of course not factoring in interest or insurance!

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
I agree with the author, and disagree as well.

Household items/consumables/food/transportation are all at easily or moderately attainable prices, which is good.

Real estate and education, however, are at absurd levels that prior generations didn’t face. I speak as one of the better-off millennials, who also paid for an MBA and is a homeowner.

That is a problem, and is driven by basic economics and scarcity (population growth + immigration + excess money chasing yield). In other words, she is right… and she is wrong.

Link to housing inflation chart - image was massive on mobile

I was watching the Andy Griffith show the other day - the episode where Barney decides to try to sell real estate. Andy was going to sell his house for $2,500 and buy a nicer house for $3,500. He was going to get a mortgage from the local bank to make up the difference...

I wonder what the terms for the mortgage would be? Let's see, $1,000 on a 30 year mortgage would be $2.77 a month, of course not factoring in interest or insurance!

There were no 30 year mortgages, 10-15 maybe, and the interest rate was much higher and actually reflected reality, not the politics.
$5000 a year was also a reasonable middle class income.