The Myth of the broke Millenial

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Even amid this slaughter of tradition, Millennials are best known for another characteristic: how broke they are. Millennials, it’s often said, are the first American generation that will do worse than its parents financially.

a house is perhaps the most tangible embodiment of the American dream. Millennials’ housing woes have featured prominently in media accounts of the generation’s economic (and life) problems. “There should be a Millennial edition of Monopoly where you just walk around the board paying rent, never able to buy anything,” a Twitter comedian who goes by “Mutable Joe” joked in 2016. BuzzFeed ran a story last year on 24 “ways Millennials became homeowners,” filled with decidedly sui generis anecdotes. One described someone who’d been hit by a truck and won a lawsuit, covering their down payment. Short of getting concussed by a semi, the article suggested, Millennials had little chance of becoming homeowners.

But contrary to that narrative, Millennials’ homeownership rates in 2020 were only slightly behind Boomers’ and Gen Xers’ at the same age: 50 percent of Boomers owned their own home as 25-to-39-year-olds, compared with 48 percent of Millennials, hardly a difference deserving of headlines or social-media memes.

Link:https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/05/millennial-generation-financial-issues-income-homeowners/673485/

An article that does a good job looking at the data and pointing out that despite memes, Millennials are outearning previous generations and haven't realy lagged behind in house ownership.

[Del Tachi]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

[Jim Crow]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

There's homeowners in Jackson, MS? 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

There's homeowners in Jackson, MS? 

Of course.
And homeowners both white and black.

[Jim Crow]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

There's homeowners in Jackson, MS? 

Of course.
And homeowners both white and black.

Do you know who Rashad Richey is?  He's always complaining about it.

[Хahar 🤔]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

Take a look at the trajectory of rents in Boise or Phoenix, neither of which are (to the best of my knowledge) where the pundit class resides. Rents may have stayed stable in Jackson, but they absolutely have not in Atlanta or even in Macon. In August 2019, I was able to get a lease on a one-bedroom with 729 square feet in Sandy Springs for a shade over $900. When I look online now, that unit starts at $1344, an increase of 50% in less than four years. I'm not sure how you can argue that this is something that only affects the elite.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

There's homeowners in Jackson, MS? 

Of course.
And homeowners both white and black.

Do you know who Rashad Richey is?  He's always complaining about it.

Never heard of him before. Interesting.

[Jim Crow]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

There's homeowners in Jackson, MS? 

Of course.
And homeowners both white and black.

Do you know who Rashad Richey is?  He's always complaining about it.

Never heard of him before. Interesting.

He's on The Young Turks.  You guys gotta watch that show!

[Suburbia]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

There's homeowners in Jackson, MS? 

Of course.
And homeowners both white and black.

Do you know who Rashad Richey is?  He's always complaining about it.

Never heard of him before. Interesting.

He's on The Young Turks.  You guys gotta watch that show!

Richey is under controversy for talking too quickly without facts about a white woman and black teenagers and a NYC CitiBike.

[Jim Crow]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

There's homeowners in Jackson, MS? 

Of course.
And homeowners both white and black.

Do you know who Rashad Richey is?  He's always complaining about it.

Never heard of him before. Interesting.

He's on The Young Turks.  You guys gotta watch that show!

Richey is under controversy for talking too quickly without facts about a white woman and black teenagers and a NYC CitiBike.

I'm familiar with the story and his coverage.  His show is still doing mental gymnastics to defend the thugs who robbed an innocent white lady.  The lady on his show referred to him as "poor baby" when they should really be calling him another name.

[kwabbit]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

Take a look at the trajectory of rents in Boise or Phoenix, neither of which are (to the best of my knowledge) where the pundit class resides. Rents may have stayed stable in Jackson, but they absolutely have not in Atlanta or even in Macon. In August 2019, I was able to get a lease on a one-bedroom with 729 square feet in Sandy Springs for a shade over $900. When I look online now, that unit starts at $1344, an increase of 50% in less than four years. I'm not sure how you can argue that this is something that only affects the elite.

Isn't the origin of the post-war suburban homeownership myth partially that people gladly moved to previously undesirable land in droves though? I imagine the already established suburban communities had massively appreciating housing costs in the 1950s, but when people are suddenly ok with living 30 miles from the city the costs will be lower.

Del Tachi is playing up the pundit class aspect more than it deserves, but young professionals are attracted to cities more than they used to, so you have a lot of demand for land at full occupancy. Boomers raising their children in places like suburban Cincinnati is different than millennials wanting to buy homes near Boston, NYC, Seattle, SF, LA, etc. I am capable of buying a home in my hometown but not super close to NYC. But that's not very different than my parents, who bought a home in my hometown and not near NYC. Becoming a homeowner is still achievable to the same percentage of Americans, it's just that more young Americans, specifically the children of UMC families, want a more interesting locale than the quintessential suburb.

[Хahar 🤔]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media.  

Take a look at the trajectory of rents in Boise or Phoenix, neither of which are (to the best of my knowledge) where the pundit class resides. Rents may have stayed stable in Jackson, but they absolutely have not in Atlanta or even in Macon. In August 2019, I was able to get a lease on a one-bedroom with 729 square feet in Sandy Springs for a shade over $900. When I look online now, that unit starts at $1344, an increase of 50% in less than four years. I'm not sure how you can argue that this is something that only affects the elite.

Isn't the origin of the post-war suburban homeownership myth partially that people gladly moved to previously undesirable land in droves though? I imagine the already established suburban communities had massively appreciating housing costs in the 1950s, but when people are suddenly ok with living 30 miles from the city the costs will be lower.

Del Tachi is playing up the pundit class aspect more than it deserves, but young professionals are attracted to cities more than they used to, so you have a lot of demand for land at full occupancy. Boomers raising their children in places like suburban Cincinnati is different than millennials wanting to buy homes near Boston, NYC, Seattle, SF, LA, etc. I am capable of buying a home in my hometown but not super close to NYC. But that's not very different than my parents, who bought a home in my hometown and not near NYC. Becoming a homeowner is still achievable to the same percentage of Americans, it's just that more young Americans, specifically the children of UMC families, want a more interesting locale than the quintessential suburb.

I've been referring to rental prices because the young people I know are not generally in a position to buy a house, but for house prices we can look at the FRED database on the St. Louis Fed's website. For the Cincinnati MSA, the current all-transactions house price index is listed at 263.20. (The baseline value is set at 100 for Q1 1995.) Ten years ago, it was 141.28. That's an increase of 86% in a decade. Over the previous decade, the house price index in Cincinnati rose by 0.6%.

In the two metropolitan areas I mentioned previously, Phoenix and Boise, the house price index rose over the last decade by 172% and 205% respectively. In Bakersfield that figure is 116%. In Greenville/Anderson it's 114%. I haven't cherrypicked any of these places; they're just the places that I happened to look up. In fairness, I will note that house prices in Hampton Roads over the last decade have gone up a mere 57%. Are these the interesting locales that you say that young Americans from upper middle class families are looking for?

It would be a really nice just-so story if young people complaining about housing prices were just doing it because they felt like they were too good for the sort of housing that their parents were happy with. Unfortunately the evidence shows that that's entirely fanciful.

[kwabbit]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media.  

Take a look at the trajectory of rents in Boise or Phoenix, neither of which are (to the best of my knowledge) where the pundit class resides. Rents may have stayed stable in Jackson, but they absolutely have not in Atlanta or even in Macon. In August 2019, I was able to get a lease on a one-bedroom with 729 square feet in Sandy Springs for a shade over $900. When I look online now, that unit starts at $1344, an increase of 50% in less than four years. I'm not sure how you can argue that this is something that only affects the elite.

Isn't the origin of the post-war suburban homeownership myth partially that people gladly moved to previously undesirable land in droves though? I imagine the already established suburban communities had massively appreciating housing costs in the 1950s, but when people are suddenly ok with living 30 miles from the city the costs will be lower.

Del Tachi is playing up the pundit class aspect more than it deserves, but young professionals are attracted to cities more than they used to, so you have a lot of demand for land at full occupancy. Boomers raising their children in places like suburban Cincinnati is different than millennials wanting to buy homes near Boston, NYC, Seattle, SF, LA, etc. I am capable of buying a home in my hometown but not super close to NYC. But that's not very different than my parents, who bought a home in my hometown and not near NYC. Becoming a homeowner is still achievable to the same percentage of Americans, it's just that more young Americans, specifically the children of UMC families, want a more interesting locale than the quintessential suburb.

I've been referring to rental prices because the young people I know are not generally in a position to buy a house, but for house prices we can look at the FRED database on the St. Louis Fed's website. For the Cincinnati MSA, the current all-transactions house price index is listed at 263.20. (The baseline value is set at 100 for Q1 1995.) Ten years ago, it was 141.28. That's an increase of 86% in a decade. Over the previous decade, the house price index in Cincinnati rose by 0.6%.

In the two metropolitan areas I mentioned previously, Phoenix and Boise, the house price index rose over the last decade by 172% and 205% respectively. In Bakersfield that figure is 116%. In Greenville/Anderson it's 114%. I haven't cherrypicked any of these places; they're just the places that I happened to look up. In fairness, I will note that house prices in Hampton Roads over the last decade have gone up a mere 57%. Are these the interesting locales that you say that young Americans from upper middle class families are looking for?

It would be a really nice just-so story if young people complaining about housing prices were just doing it because they felt like they were too good for the sort of housing that their parents were happy with. Unfortunately the evidence shows that that's entirely fanciful.

In 1995 terms, the MHI is at 2.21 though. That indicates that housing is 15% more expensive relative to median income now than in 1995, although rates were higher then so it's probably about 10% in actuality. It's true that housing has increased sharply in recent years, but in the chart you sent it seems like it's more a return to the pre-crash trend, as if you extrapolated the 2003 amount out. Comparing the trough of the market to the peak is misleading. It must suck if you first started thinking about buying a home in the trough, but it's not that different of a situation than most Americans would've been in in the past 50 years. It's more that 2013 was an insanely good market to buy a house.

House prices have begun appreciating slowly again; there will be no 100% increase in costs over the next ten years. In many markets, especially the ones that saw the highest peak during the pandemic, costs have decreased. I do agree that home costs are too high and that the housing stock should be increased through the typical yimby means, but the problem is less acute than it's portrayed in the media.

[pikachu]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

Take a look at the trajectory of rents in Boise or Phoenix, neither of which are (to the best of my knowledge) where the pundit class resides. Rents may have stayed stable in Jackson, but they absolutely have not in Atlanta or even in Macon. In August 2019, I was able to get a lease on a one-bedroom with 729 square feet in Sandy Springs for a shade over $900. When I look online now, that unit starts at $1344, an increase of 50% in less than four years. I'm not sure how you can argue that this is something that only affects the elite.

Isn't the origin of the post-war suburban homeownership myth partially that people gladly moved to previously undesirable land in droves though? I imagine the already established suburban communities had massively appreciating housing costs in the 1950s, but when people are suddenly ok with living 30 miles from the city the costs will be lower.

Del Tachi is playing up the pundit class aspect more than it deserves, but young professionals are attracted to cities more than they used to, so you have a lot of demand for land at full occupancy. Boomers raising their children in places like suburban Cincinnati is different than millennials wanting to buy homes near Boston, NYC, Seattle, SF, LA, etc. I am capable of buying a home in my hometown but not super close to NYC. But that's not very different than my parents, who bought a home in my hometown and not near NYC. Becoming a homeowner is still achievable to the same percentage of Americans, it's just that more young Americans, specifically the children of UMC families, want a more interesting locale than the quintessential suburb.

Kinda but a major reason for it was the mass adoption of the car + the construction of the infrastructure to accommodate the car made living 30 miles away from downtown feasible in a way that it wasn’t before. I’d read it less as a change of taste and more as a transportation innovation changing the possibilities of where and how to live. My guess is that even today you’d see some correlation between areas that have seen a recently constructed freeway and those with an increase in first-time homeowners.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

Even rents on the outskirts here in Charleston have skyrocketed over the last 3-4 years. People are paying $1400-$1500/mo for a 1 bedroom apartment just to live 45 minutes away from the main urban area. I don't think it is just a problem concentrated in the biggest metro areas.

[Del Tachi]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

Even rents on the outskirts here in Charleston have skyrocketed over the last 3-4 years. People are paying $1400-$1500/mo for a 1 bedroom apartment just to live 45 minutes away from the main urban area. I don't think it is just a problem concentrated in the biggest metro areas.

Greater Charleston has been growing ~2% per year and has a job market much better than the national average.  It's a hot city. 

Also, "45 minutes away" from the main urban area could mean different things.  Are you talking about Downtown Charleston or the main commercial center of North Charleston (which I suspect actually has more total employment?)

Assuming rent of $1,400/mo, someone spending the recommended 30% of their gross income on housing would need to make $56,000 per year to afford living on their own in Charleston.  That's a completely reasonable entry-level salary for a college graduate in today's market.

Millennials are poorer than previous generations mostly for two reasons.  (1) They spend more time in school, which means compared to their parents and grandparents they don't start earning a salary until later in their 20s and (2) fewer of them are married and thus they're way more likely to live in single-income households. 

[Kamala's side hoe]

Millennials are poorer than previous generations mostly for two reasons.  (1) They spend more time in school, which means compared to their parents and grandparents they don't start earning a salary until later in their 20s and (2) fewer of them are married and thus they're way more likely to live in single-income households. 

Changes in housing affordability would be a third reason but that also affects other birth cohorts.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Millennials are poorer than previous generations mostly for two reasons.  (1) They spend more time in school, which means compared to their parents and grandparents they don't start earning a salary until later in their 20s and (2) fewer of them are married and thus they're way more likely to live in single-income households. 

Changes in housing affordability would be a third reason but that also affects other birth cohorts.

Arguing with Boomer NIMBYs who are mad about new public transport and mixed-use complexes (both of which will INCREASE their precious property values) on Nextdoor is always fun.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Millennials are poorer than previous generations mostly for two reasons.  (1) They spend more time in school, which means compared to their parents and grandparents they don't start earning a salary until later in their 20s and (2) fewer of them are married and thus they're way more likely to live in single-income households. 

Changes in housing affordability would be a third reason but that also affects other birth cohorts.

Arguing with Boomer NIMBYs who are mad about new public transport and mixed-use complexes (both of which will INCREASE their precious property values) on Nextdoor is always fun.

I think the best way to try and convert NIMBYs is to shift the narrative towards the idea that more development likely raises their property value significantly in the long term. I think many have this default perception that more development will ruin their neighborhood and bring all this crime and ruin the culture, ect, but if we could somehow shift the default perspective to the idea that density increases property value, we'd have more success.

[Mechavada]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

Take a look at the trajectory of rents in Boise or Phoenix, neither of which are (to the best of my knowledge) where the pundit class resides. Rents may have stayed stable in Jackson, but they absolutely have not in Atlanta or even in Macon. In August 2019, I was able to get a lease on a one-bedroom with 729 square feet in Sandy Springs for a shade over $900. When I look online now, that unit starts at $1344, an increase of 50% in less than four years. I'm not sure how you can argue that this is something that only affects the elite.

Hubris.

[ProgressiveModerate]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

Take a look at the trajectory of rents in Boise or Phoenix, neither of which are (to the best of my knowledge) where the pundit class resides. Rents may have stayed stable in Jackson, but they absolutely have not in Atlanta or even in Macon. In August 2019, I was able to get a lease on a one-bedroom with 729 square feet in Sandy Springs for a shade over $900. When I look online now, that unit starts at $1344, an increase of 50% in less than four years. I'm not sure how you can argue that this is something that only affects the elite.

Isn't the origin of the post-war suburban homeownership myth partially that people gladly moved to previously undesirable land in droves though? I imagine the already established suburban communities had massively appreciating housing costs in the 1950s, but when people are suddenly ok with living 30 miles from the city the costs will be lower.

Del Tachi is playing up the pundit class aspect more than it deserves, but young professionals are attracted to cities more than they used to, so you have a lot of demand for land at full occupancy. Boomers raising their children in places like suburban Cincinnati is different than millennials wanting to buy homes near Boston, NYC, Seattle, SF, LA, etc. I am capable of buying a home in my hometown but not super close to NYC. But that's not very different than my parents, who bought a home in my hometown and not near NYC. Becoming a homeowner is still achievable to the same percentage of Americans, it's just that more young Americans, specifically the children of UMC families, want a more interesting locale than the quintessential suburb.

Kinda but a major reason for it was the mass adoption of the car + the construction of the infrastructure to accommodate the car made living 30 miles away from downtown feasible in a way that it wasn’t before. I’d read it less as a change of taste and more as a transportation innovation changing the possibilities of where and how to live. My guess is that even today you’d see some correlation between areas that have seen a recently constructed freeway and those with an increase in first-time homeowners.

I would say this is def part of the problem in somewhere like NYC. For the folks who work in the city on the daily basis, they basically need a subway line in order to do so. However, especially in Queens and on the NJ side, there are a ton of subway dead-zones that would probably allow significantly increased density in those communities if they were built, and therefore a larger realistic "bubble" for the people who work in Manhattan. However, in the past 50 years or so, there's been very little expansion and therefore very few new communities to actually be built up to increase the supply of housing for these workers.

[ProgressiveModerate]

True.  Most young Millennial couples I know in Jackson are homeowners; most in New Orleans are not (unless they live on the Northshore.)  The housing crisis is extremely concentrated in certain metros/states (i.e., New York, California, D.C., etc.) that also happen to be where the pundit class resides, which is why this is such a big issue in the media. 

Even rents on the outskirts here in Charleston have skyrocketed over the last 3-4 years. People are paying $1400-$1500/mo for a 1 bedroom apartment just to live 45 minutes away from the main urban area. I don't think it is just a problem concentrated in the biggest metro areas.

Greater Charleston has been growing ~2% per year and has a job market much better than the national average.  It's a hot city. 

Also, "45 minutes away" from the main urban area could mean different things.  Are you talking about Downtown Charleston or the main commercial center of North Charleston (which I suspect actually has more total employment?)

Assuming rent of $1,400/mo, someone spending the recommended 30% of their gross income on housing would need to make $56,000 per year to afford living on their own in Charleston.  That's a completely reasonable entry-level salary for a college graduate in today's market.

Millennials are poorer than previous generations mostly for two reasons.  (1) They spend more time in school, which means compared to their parents and grandparents they don't start earning a salary until later in their 20s and (2) fewer of them are married and thus they're way more likely to live in single-income households. 

Another thing I would add to your list the cost of keeping up with social standards perpetuated by society have increased, so Millenials are more likely to spend on things such as nice clothes, fancy dinners, and certain experiences, rather than investing. I get the sense that in general when boomers were at their prime, socialization was a lot more "casual" and you'd just chill with Bob down the street.

Some reasons social standards have increased probably include social media, increased ways to digitally connect with new people, people living in denser communities (hence immediate neighbors mean a lot less), ect.

[Хahar 🤔]

Another thing I would add to your list the cost of keeping up with social standards perpetuated by society have increased, so Millenials are more likely to spend on things such as nice clothes, fancy dinners, and certain experiences, rather than investing. I get the sense that in general when boomers were at their prime, socialization was a lot more "casual" and you'd just chill with Bob down the street.

Some reasons social standards have increased probably include social media, increased ways to digitally connect with new people, people living in denser communities (hence immediate neighbors mean a lot less), ect.

This is extremely unlikely: consumer goods are generally far cheaper than they once were. Here's an article about the cost of a television over time that can help you understand how dramatic the drop in price over time has been. Here's another one about household appliances. Americans have to spend far less on regular household items, which should mean that they have more money left over. In terms of clothes, it seems straightforward to surmise that people generally spend less on work clothes and related expenses than they did in the past when many more jobs expected employees to wear a suit and tie.

The idea that digitally connecting people would lead to spending more money on socialization also does not make any sense. Americans spend much less time socializing with other people than they used to, which intuitively makes sense because online interaction would serve as a substitute for actual interaction. This should mean that people are spending dramatically less money on social events, not more.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Another thing I would add to your list the cost of keeping up with social standards perpetuated by society have increased, so Millenials are more likely to spend on things such as nice clothes, fancy dinners, and certain experiences, rather than investing. I get the sense that in general when boomers were at their prime, socialization was a lot more "casual" and you'd just chill with Bob down the street.

Some reasons social standards have increased probably include social media, increased ways to digitally connect with new people, people living in denser communities (hence immediate neighbors mean a lot less), ect.

This is extremely unlikely: consumer goods are generally far cheaper than they once were. Here's an article about the cost of a television over time that can help you understand how dramatic the drop in price over time has been. Here's another one about household appliances. Americans have to spend far less on regular household items, which should mean that they have more money left over. In terms of clothes, it seems straightforward to surmise that people generally spend less on work clothes and related expenses than they did in the past when many more jobs expected employees to wear a suit and tie.

The idea that digitally connecting people would lead to spending more money on socialization also does not make any sense. Americans spend much less time socializing with other people than they used to, which intuitively makes sense because online interaction would serve as a substitute for actual interaction. This should mean that people are spending dramatically less money on social events, not more.

It seems like from the articles I've read perhaps my original take was a bit too agressive but true in certain areas. It seems in general most say Millenials spend comparatively more than boomers on such as clothing, food (both ordering and resturaunts), technology, but less on things like travel and furniture, so "discretionary" purchases is more of a mixed bag.

However it's also a bit tricky what's just because of the age gap rather than the generational gap; this doesn't neccessarily prove back in their prime Boomers did or didn't have different spending habits.

https://millennialmoney.com/millennial-spending-habits/

This article compiles a lot of sources.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Another thing I would add to your list the cost of keeping up with social standards perpetuated by society have increased, so Millenials are more likely to spend on things such as nice clothes, fancy dinners, and certain experiences, rather than investing. I get the sense that in general when boomers were at their prime, socialization was a lot more "casual" and you'd just chill with Bob down the street.

Some reasons social standards have increased probably include social media, increased ways to digitally connect with new people, people living in denser communities (hence immediate neighbors mean a lot less), ect.

This is extremely unlikely: consumer goods are generally far cheaper than they once were. Here's an article about the cost of a television over time that can help you understand how dramatic the drop in price over time has been. Here's another one about household appliances. Americans have to spend far less on regular household items, which should mean that they have more money left over. In terms of clothes, it seems straightforward to surmise that people generally spend less on work clothes and related expenses than they did in the past when many more jobs expected employees to wear a suit and tie.

The idea that digitally connecting people would lead to spending more money on socialization also does not make any sense. Americans spend much less time socializing with other people than they used to, which intuitively makes sense because online interaction would serve as a substitute for actual interaction. This should mean that people are spending dramatically less money on social events, not more.

It seems like from the articles I've read perhaps my original take was a bit too agressive but true in certain areas. It seems in general most say Millenials spend comparatively more than boomers on such as clothing, food (both ordering and resturaunts), technology, but less on things like travel and furniture, so "discretionary" purchases is more of a mixed bag.

However it's also a bit tricky what's just because of the age gap rather than the generational gap; this doesn't neccessarily prove back in their prime Boomers did or didn't have different spending habits.

https://millennialmoney.com/millennial-spending-habits/

This article compiles a lot of sources.

Rich millennials may spend a lot on designer clothes in New York and Los Angeles, but the vast majority, even in those places, just buy reps and Shein and don't care if it doesn't last. I would say millennials spend way more on travel than boomers either now or in their prime, which aligns with the article you linked to.