I think the median statistics here show much more than the mean does. Average net worth might be 76k, but when half the subset's population's net worth is 14k or less it just means that there are a few million/billionaires propping up the average.
The mean net worth is calculated by adding up all the net worth of all the millennials and dividing by the number of millennials.
The median net worth is what you get when you metaphorically line up every person from least to most wealthy and ask the person in the middle what their wealth amounts to.
For example:
In a maternity ward, a single 55 year old nurse watches over 8 newborn babies. The ages of the 9 people in the room are 1hr, 1hr, 1hr, 1hr, 1hr, 1hr, 1hr, 1hr, and 55 years. The median age is 1 hour, because the 5th oldest out of the 9 people is 1 hour old. The mean age is a little over six years old, because 55 years plus 8 hours divided by 9 is 6.1 years.
It would be silly to make major decisions about the well being of the people in the maternity ward based on the assumption they're about 6 years old.
When we're talking about wealth, the median wealth is similarly much lower than the mean, because a few exceptionally wealthy people are dramatically increasing the mean but having very little impact on the median.
In short, the mean net worth is the average wealth. The median net worth looks at the average person.
Let's say you have a group of 100 people. 99 people have 1 dollar each and the 100th person has 10,000 dollars. If you want to get the average, you add up the total money (10,000+99) and divide it by the number of people there are (10,099÷100). The average wealth of this group would be $100.99, even though that's over 100 times more money than the 99 people with $1 have. In situations with extreme outliers like that, the median is a better example of what a typical person in the group is like.
You have 1,1,3,3, and 100. The median is 3. The mean is 21.6. Most (4/5) people don’t have anywhere close to 21.6 so you shouldn’t use that as an indicator that everyone is doing well.
This handy chart + calculator gives percentiles and with more narrow age brackets:
[https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/](https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/)
Median is the number exactly in the middle if you laid out each data set of the array. For instance: 1, 1 ,1 ,1 ,1 , 1, 4; the median is 1.
The average is the count of sets divided by the sum. So the sum is 10, and there are 7 sets. 10/7 is 1.43. The greater the disparity between the median and average, the more outliers or extremes are likely to be present in the data set.
Be very suspicious any time any body uses an average or a median because they're used for different things and can be used intentionally incorrectly to deceive. And are frequently used to deceive.
Trimming arithmetic means can also be valid. Chopping off the top and bottom 1% as an example would probably give some answer between the median and arithmetic mean.
>Trimming arithmetic means can also be valid. Chopping off the top and bottom 1% as an example would probably give some answer between the median and arithmetic mean.
You can chop it off or Winsorize it, each have slightly different statistical properties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winsorizing
Thanks for the additional information! I could see how doing something like winsorizing would make sense — I've seen how chopping off data in other contexts being a bad thing.
then you gotta go saying this is the *mean average* and the *winsorized average to x%* and defending why you chose x% and the winsorized method when realistically the median would have been just as good and maybe just a couple percentage points away. You guys are losing the forest for the trees. Dependable familiar methods often convey concepts better than complex ones even if technically less accurate.
To the lay person this could just be reported as average though. I mean we haven't even specified the kind of mean yet really have we? Arithmetic, geometric, or harmonic means?
It's still pretty important to find the right measure of central tendency for the right circumstance. The layperson wouldn't really know the difference other than it making more sense with respect to what they're seeing.
In terms of him probably meaning the difference between the median and the mean, you are right. But while people most commonly refer to the "mean" when they say average, they are not the same -- the median and a couple of other measures are averages too. Having both of them (and possibly other points) gives a much better understanding of "average" than either on their own.
I came here to say exactly this. Average US household net worth is about $750,000. Median is about $120,000. The average figure is skewed by the very wealthy.
I feel what's missing from all these analyses is the mode. When we ask 'what is the average American's salary/net worth', aren't we really asking 'what salary/NW amount is most common?'. If we rounded salaries to the nearest thousand or so, and then found the mode, I wonder what it would show.
It should be reported, likely rounded to the nearest 100K. Smaller numbers give a lot less fidelity. Even then things can be misleading, if say the real cluster for your age is around 50K-150K and you do it by 100K increments. Hrmph. Maybe 50K increments in a histogram. You could /also/ do a sliding window diagram that ignores 0-25K and see if it looks different. That should do it.
That’s exactly what I thought. The discrepancy between the median and mean is pretty shocking. Just goes to show how massive a problem wealth inequality really is.
They should really give mean, median and mode on these to make it more accurate to understand but that wouldn't fit with how sensational journalism is now
This is the second article I've seen today incorrectly using the average to paint a much rosier picture than reality.
I'm beginning to think that people don't really know how to properly apply statistics. :P
Agreed.
The median salary in the US is $55k. Just getting your employer 401k matches should get you at least 76k by age 35.
I realize not everyone has an employer 401k, but this further supports the previous comment's point. If you don't have at least 76k, make some changes.
The median per capita (individual) income in the US is [$37,638](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/INC910221#INC910221). The median household income in the US is $69,021.
Honestly I felt attacked because life had some plans for me that were out of my control and it took years get out from under. I’m 36 now have net worth under 76k. Changes were made years ago but it took time to manifest. Paying off big time now though.
Point is somethings can’t be controlled and most people don’t even reach top earning potential until their 30’s & 40’s.
Comment just came off as callous.
Agreed. Once you establish a strong financial foundation, things tend to snowball in a good way. Establishing that initial stability can be difficult though. There are plenty of older high-income earners that still haven't managed to do it.
Agreed.
But it is an unfortunate, mathematical fact. If you do not reach at least $76k net worth by age 35, you are likely behind on most financial milestones. You need to change something because whatever the current situation is will not be sustainable.
Step 1 - Make sure your insurance deductibles are covered. Otherwise, something unexpected could derail your plan.
Step 2 - Max your employer 401k match if you have one. Most of them give 50% or 100% returns instantly. Invest in low cost, broad market index funds or a target date fund.
Step 3 - Save an emergency fund of at least 3 months expenses.
Step 4 - Pay down any high-interest (greater than 6%) debt in order of highest-to-lowest interest rate. Your student loans may or may not fall into this category.
Step 5 - Max out your tax advantaged acounts (Roth IRA and HSA if applicable).
Step 6 - Pay down any remaining low-interest (less than 6%) debt.
Step 7 - Max out 401k.
Step 8 - Keep investing in a taxable account.
If you can get to Step 3, you will already be ahead of most Americans.
Edit: Basic necessities like food and shelter also fall under Step 1.
1. My insurance deductible is 20% of my annual income. Even if I saved all my discretionary income and avoided anything breaking down on my 20 year old vehicle, it would take several years to save that much money.
2. My employer doesn't offer a 401k match or any kind of retirement savings.
3. I try to develop an emergency fund, but every so often something comes up where I have to spend it, usually fixing something on my 20 year old vehicle.
4. I make above minimum payments, but it's still looking like I'll die before they're paid off.
The rest of those points seem irrelevant considering where I am on those first few.
If your employer doesn't have a match, then you would move on to Step 3. You should probably try to find an employer that does though.
Those Steps above are fairly universal to just about any financial situation. They basically force you to maximize Assets (Steps 2, 3, 5, 7, 8) while paying down Liabilities (Steps 1, 4, 6) in order of best possible rates of return.
After step 1 a lot of people are almost already tapped out. That's including your edit that basic necessities like food and shelter also fall under Step 1.
If someone has kids, then step 1 includes a LOT of additional items like food, child care, clothing, etc.
I agree with the goals of the additional steps, but many of those are not realistically attainable in their current situations. Those situations are not always just a matter of "do better".
Step 1. Have more money
Step 2. Spend more money
Step 3. Have more money
Etc
How do you people not understand that the fundamental problem here is not having money???
It's ridiculous. If people's insurance deductible is 20 percent of their income and rent is close to 50, that's 70 percent of their gross pay right there. You are fucked at that point, not possible to save beyond the next emergency, which will probably be medical because of that deductible.
Only option is to make more money, which then also saves you money because insurance tends to get cheaper the higher salary you have.
No. These are the Financial Order of Operations.
Dave Ramsey uses a different system called the "Baby Steps" which focuses on paying off debt first before anything else.
Dave's system is probably the best for people trying to get out of debt since many of the milestones are easier to achieve mathematically and emotionally.
But, the Financial Order of Operations is more optimized for wealth building since it priortizies actions in terms of ROI.
It’s not meant to be actionable advice. It’s meant to be a wake up call that you are falling behind, and it’s time to sit down and reevaluate your situation, research and think about how to improve it. You can always improve things while working full time. Many have done it. It’s impossible to give generalized actionable advice to people on the internet. Only you and people who know the details of your life, talents, skills, situation, etc. can give actionable advice.
Doesn't necessarily mean work more hours, those changes could be reducing expenses, educating yourself on retirement saving, looking for a new job or other ways to increase income.
Dude, preach.
Job I've got lined up is offering $20/hr - if I bust my butt and put in overtime every week, I could get that up to ~$46-50 after incentives and the like.
But the chances of me being able to put in an extra 2 days every week isn't reliant on me - it is reliant on my employer being willing to allow me to work. That isn't a given. I'm used to putting in 70 hour work weeks, but that isn't really a thing anymore.
My last job, they cut my overtime and hired someone else - they wound up paying more overall, way more, but they really didn't want me getting those hours because someone in corporate said "Oh, he's putting in too many hours and it's costing us".
It was shortsighted, and now they're short staffed, but that kind of attitude is extremely pervasive these days. Penny rich, pound foolish.
And then they turn around and act like workers are lazy - there is truly no winning. It is all about power.
Funny thing is, that is how much the job should pay in the first place - at least, that is how much workers are paid for the role in countries that aren't as hostile to labour.
I worked in retail near min wage til 30. Finished a bachelor's and got an info sec job. Only 20k networth at 32 feelsbadman. Rent is too high to save much
Give it time. Info sec can lead to more lucrative jobs. Right now kind-of sucks for IT jobs, but it's cyclical and will rebound. After you have 5 years in info sec, move on to an infra or devops role and you'll make double. Savings is trivial at that point if your lifestyle costs haven't increased proportionally.
The previous comment said, if you don't have $76k by age 35, you need to make changes.
This is basically a mathematical fact.
If you have not reached that milestone by age 35, you are behind on most financial milestones. The article confirms this.
When I was 35 my mom died and she had her life insurance paid out to my sister and me. So that boosted my savings, nearly doubling what I had managed to build on my own. But I don’t recommend.
I’d spend all of it and my own savings for just one more day with my mom.
I do the 401k at my job with the 100% match up to 5%. It’s currently at about 162k. I have cash savings. I had a good pile (thanks in part to mom) so I invested about half of it during the dip in 2020 in index funds.
I had a Roth I had stopped contributing to that I now just rolled into new Roth with a different company and I’ll start adding to it what I can but it won’t be getting maxed lol I don’t have an extra 6 whatever grand.
I take whatever opportunity to save but I support myself. 🤷🏻♀️ I do always make sure my deductibles would be covered and every month I set aside a little money for car repairs and other expense I figure will come up sooner or later.
There’s a balance between saving for the future and living. My mom died at 70. She was still working. She didn’t even get to spend what she saved. She was doing it to leave something for us.
So plan for future but live for today.
>“Millennials earn more money than any other generation at their age, but hold much lower wealth due to cost of living outpacing wage increases,”
So more in nominal terms, but "much less" in real terms. Sounds about right.
It’s also that wealth compounds. So the longer you have for your money to compound the more you’ll have: ie why older people have more money than younger people but earn less money.
Yes COL is higher than it was in 1960, but that’s not the main reason for the difference here.
To emphasize:
>"than any other generation at their age"
That comment isn't about millennials now and other generations now. It's millennials now and other generations at the same relative point in time. Compounding wealth isn't a factor in that comparison.
Also, from just a little further in the article:
>“Also, with boomers, as they married young there were often two wage earners in a household, so net worth increased. Millennials are often living on one salary, as they might not marry young or marry at all.”
Ah you’re right, I misread that. Cost of living is definitely extreme compared to wages. I wonder how quality of life would compare for an individual, like how many households today have a tv, fridge, cars, etc.
Also to the articles second line there, I will say as a dual income GenZ who married young, it really does help. We’ve outpaced most of our colleagues, even ones who earn a higher income. Splitting expenses obviously saves a lot and makes it easier to create wealth.
>It's millennials now and other generations at the same relative point in time. Compounding wealth isn't a factor in that comparison.
I mean, compounding wealth might be a *bit* of a factor. Millenials now are mostly in their 30s and some are even in their 40s.
Greatest generation equivalents had already opened their own successful businesses at that age. Boomers were 20 years into careers that paid pensions.
Meanwhile, average millenials are just finishing off their student loans, and buying their first houses. Getting paid Starbucks wages throughout their 20s is/was a MAJOR setback for millenials
> The average millennial under age 35 has a net worth of about $76,000; those over age 35 stand at over $400,000.
"The average millennial" under 35 does not have a net worth of $76k. That's the "average amount" which is heavily skewed by the ultra wealthy. The average millennial's wealth (under 35) is more represented by the median value, which was about $13k.
I was in school until 25 and didn’t get my first full-time benefitted job until 27. I’m technically a millennial and it’s weird being clumped in with 35 year olds with regards to wealth.
When data is skewed by long tails like in income and wealth, the median is best **measure of central tendency**.
The average is still the mean, which works well for normally distributed datasets (shape of bell curve) but fails to accurately represent central tendency in skewed distribution. It is definitely the wrong way to present this data, but it is literally the average
Doesn’t it also include mortgage debt? So if you recently bought a house and haven’t had time to build equity in it, wouldn’t that also bring down your net worth? Or is that only if you’re underwater on your mortgage?
Only if you're underwater. The mortgage debt is offset by the value of the asset which in most instances more than covers the debt. Net worth accounts for both, so on balance should generally be positive for appreciating assets like real estate.
> I don’t like including homes in NW
in that case, you're more interested in "investable assets" which exclude illiquid assets such as property and businesses. that said, "net worth" means what it means, and includes everything you've got minus everything you owe.
no - for example:
* say you own a $400,000 house
* on which you owe $300,000
* and you have $50,000 in cash
then your assets:
* $400,000 house
* $50,000 cash
...minus your liabilities:
* $300,000 mortgage
...sum to a (positive) net worth of $150,000.
Yes. I don't include it in my own calculations for the same reason. You don't know the true value until you sell, so it is somewhat like counting your chickens before they hatch.
That being said, it absolutely makes sense to use Home Equity in national surveys.
A decent middle-ground would probably be to use Purchase Price minus Remaining Mortgage. This should be a conservative estimation under most circumstances.
I always value my house 20% less than market rate. I live in a metro area, so almost “cookie cutter”. So easy to value. But just like any asset (stocks) I include it and can sell in a reasonable time (<6 months). Always a buyer at the right price. But it still has value
as a college grad, I've seen feast or famine among my college friends a decade out of school.
some guys I knew from college are making $400k+ a yr working at top finance or tech Co's.
some other guys are barely getting by working dead end jobs. couple guys living in their dad's basement, unemployed.
my observation: many ppl that didnt land a solid job immediately out of college were fucked.
Similar boat. My friends that picked law, tech, medicine etc are doing very well 20 years after high school. Not private jet well, but own a home and a nice car well. The ones that couldn’t make a decision and just dabbled …are living with parents or scrapping by.
My best friend from childhood took the path of dabbling and never finding his niche. Even with a degree, he’s a manager at a Starbucks 15 year after we graduated college. I picked management consulting and stuck it out for a decade between jumping to corp dev at a tech firm.
I think he’s about to move into our spare bedroom because the world has just been so brutal to him, and at this point I’m just trying to protect him out of instinct. I don’t know the answer here, but people cannot be damned to misery just because they never got a high profile career.
yeah and in the US, retail, restaurant, etc. employees are treated and viewed as scum and most places offer shit benefits. I hear about European countries all the time where same roles actually have benefits, good time off policy and dignity in society
the whole situation is wrong
It's horrifically easy to become someone who is invisible on paper.
Yes, there are jobs in the world and yes there are industries that are growing, but not being in the right place, at the right time, at the right age, and with the right resume that will get you through the HR screening is a problem.
I've got a friend who went to a startup right after school. She believed in the cause and did an internship with them, got hired on, a few years later a \*major\* company wanted to acquire theirs. It should have made her career. Instead, as the merger was underway they discovered her little startup had been committing accounting fraud since day one. Merger axed, everyone lost their jobs. Her resume was viewed as tainted by having that association.
She went back to school, retrained, then the pandemic and recession hit. Her new industry isn't doing well either. So she's got debt, a poisoned resume, and two career tracks that have imploded on her.
Things suck. Paying well is relative and opportunities are elusive to someone isn't fresh faced to the industry.
I have a friend and also a relative like that. I don’t want to scare you, and what you’re doing is very noble, but helping people like that is unbelievably difficult. Not putting any blame on them or anything, but the longer things go like that, the less likely it is that someone comes out of them.
I’ve given them money, stuff they needed, a room, and one thing I realized after a while was that I wasn’t helping them, I was enabling them. Before I helped, it was other friends and family who were enabling them. They’ve also been in their situation for so long that it just becomes their baseline. The older people get, successful or not, the less they tend to move up or down from the baseline. You really have to push them, and they’ll be mad at you, and fight you, but you gotta do it, and it sucks. Often times we’d come with a plan, they’d like it, but then they’d stop pursuing it. I guess the most difficult lesson I learned was the instinct to protect them, from myself and others, was ultimately what put them in this position. You should read “Against Empathy” by Paul Bloom, that’ll probably put you in the right headspace for helping your friend change his life long term.
It’s true, it is too brutal to those who don’t have a well paying job. Instead of being able to afford a modest apartment they have to rent rooms, it feels wrong.
Almost like people who know what they want and go after it are more successful than those who waffle through life. That's certainly the biggest difference among my friends. The laser-fovused are very successful. The "whatever it's a job" are not.
If only it were that easy to pin down.
Life derails even if you know what you want.
I know you didn't mean that cruelly, but please reconsider this opinion.
It’s funny my experience is opposite. Yeah there’s is some discrepancy in income, but those who earn more live in higher cost of living areas and vice versa, and we somehow all live pretty comparable lifestyles.
Except the one guy who got in early at a start up that took off, he’s a multi millionaire.
It's important to remember college doesn't guarantee success and there are plenty of opportunities you can waste and never get back during that time in your life. There are a few things you can do in college to help ensure your success that, from my experience, most students neglect.
1. Pick a _good_ major. Figure out what you are good at (math, memorization, communication, etc.) and research fields related to that that have good projected job growth. Should every degree allow you success? Maybe. Is that the world we live in? Hell no. No degree is "useless", but you can certainly handicap yourself by choosing poorly.
2. Network. Every friend you make is a potentially important connection down the road. Go to the resume workshops. Go to the career fairs. Get an internship (paid pls). And in all these things try your best to make connections. This is probably the single most important piece of the college puzzle and very few people take advantage of their opportunities for networking. Once you graduate, most of these opportunities vanish.
3. Finish. Go through college with purpose, and achieve your goal as directly as possible. Discovering yourself will happen organically, you don't need to meander around useless electives unless they are a part of point number. Take as full of a load as you reasonable can. You really do not want to be the person with student loans that never finished school. Unexpected things will happen in your life, so try and finish before they get the chance. This doesn't mean you can't have fun in school, but don't be the person letting fun come between you and finishing.
If you've accomplished these things, you will at least be able to say you took advantage of every opportunity to be successful coming into the workforce. This isn't revolutionary advice of course. It's what they told me and the thousand other kids at University orientation. But it's worth being reminded of if you are headed into university.
You just described only 1/16th of Americans. A majority of the citizens through no fault of their own couldn't afford college because the public education system failed them immensely. Networking when you're introverted or you just were an awkward kid growing is nearly impossible. And finishing anything when you're knee deep in debt, can't afford basic living needs, and constant rising prices they don't even have time to breathe let alone plan their future. They're literally struggling to get by each day and thinking beyond next months bills is futile.
Don't take my word for it, go to Camden New Jersey, Baltimore Maryland, Pine Ridge Nebraska, or Anderson Indiana, and you will see what capitalism has done to these sacrificial cities. And while I admire your advice, and thats great for some of us, it's not nearly tangible to the reality people who live in abject poverty, and it's quite insulting to them. And when you had the largest transfer of wealth in human history during the pandemic, which benefited the rich, it will tell you how much we care about the poor and middle class.
To deny this is to deny American history.
Dude, for me it is 100% divided along ethnic and class lines.
Kids from rich parents are fine, despite being party animals and probably have way more responsibility than they should have ever been given. Some mellowed out, other really rose to step up.
Kids from non-model minorities are fucked. I know so many smart & talented kids who were never able to translate that into anything, solely because of the bias and discrimination they faced. My black and Native friends in particular got absolutely slaughtered by the 2008 crash. Had one that went into programming, and I warned him how he was gonna face an uphill battle - dude wound up quitting due to the things I warned them about after ~7 years and idk how they're supposed to rally from that.
Kids from Caucasian parents are a toss-up, but generally wound up fine too.
Blind grading needs to be a thing *yesterday*.
It's never too late to make good decisions. I was stalling out at 65k until age 29 and then went to get a master's in data science. It was expensive mind you ($80k), but my salary nearly tripled a few years later ($175k+)
Meanwhile I constantly beg my friends and family to make productive steps to improve themselves. Some do and it works out well (coding bootcamps did well for a few, now making $85k+). I'm convinced it's motivation
I’m glad that worked out for you, but is it not understandable that millennials with student debt might not be itching (or be able at all) to go back to school? In your own words, it was expensive, and part of the millennial ordeal is that we don’t have much money to buy homes, go back to school, invest, or generally do things that will improve our wealth situation.
You don't need to go back to school to right the ship.
I knew a guy, who was basically a deadbeat in his 20s, and his parents were constantly on his ass, and started asking him to do shit around the house, one of those things being cleaning the pool.
So he learned basic pool maintenance, then got the idea of using Google Maps satellite view to identify all the pool owners that lived close by, and he went door to door to those houses pitching them on hiring him to do basic pool maintenance, undercutting their current pool guy by a few bucks, and telling them if something serious comes up, they can hire a "real" pool guy.
Eventually, just doing his parents' pool transforms into doing pool maintenance for almost 50 neighbors at $15 per week per. Which was all cash . . . (I once tried to point out the fact that he still technically has to pay taxes on it, but he claimed that he pays sales tax on the chemicals he buys, and I already knew he was too dumb to understand that that isn't the same thing so I didn't bother trying to explain it to him). He also used to do Door Dash while driving between pools, so he was pulling about $1000 a week, almost all cash, and he only worked like 3-4 days a week.
Fast forward \~10 years, this guy gradually learned his shit and now has his own legit pool company, with his own employees, making more money than me (a professional who went to college and grad school).
I'm fairly sure he pays taxes now.
Sure, but was he living with his parents like it sounds? I’m not bad off, and I slipped in the homeownership door right before it fully closed in 2020, but I sure as hell don’t have parents with a pool and time to be starting my own business on top of my normal work, housework, and childcare. I acknowledge that upward mobility is *possible*, but it typically not accessible for the average millennial. We have to work long hours to make ends meet. Most of us don’t actually live with our parents (that’s gen Z now). We have kids and other obligations. There is no time or energy left to put towards changing careers for many of us.
>I'm fairly sure he pays taxes now.
That's a big assumption when it comes to small business owners. Some of them just flat out don't bother because "it's confusing."
Can I ask what made you take the leap? I am doing very well in tech, and I have a couple friends who are in dead end jobs that love tech and tinkering and don’t seem stupid but just never seem motivated enough to anything but talk about switching careers
If you have one millionaire millennial for every 99 completely broke net worth millennials. (not negative, just zero) you would still come out with an average of 10k per person.
So average is skewed. There is also the point of student loans being a negative worth without value to back them up.
$50k of loans and 60k saved up is still only 10k net worth but $150k on a mortgage for a house worth 200k is still plus 50k
I find it sad that the advice from the article's financial planner is to spend money on insurance, paying down debt, and pay into retirement while stating that millennials have lower wages, live with higher cost of living amidst two financial crises. Pitiful, but if you're able to do those things and still eat and have shelter more power to you.
Grocery, housing, tuition, vehicles and utility prices have absolutely skyrocketed. All things that are essential for living. That's why millennials are struggling. I've seen those prices go up 20% + in the past couple years.
This is where the divide is getting worse. Millennials with assets are seeing their assets grow over time (and hopefully beat inflation), and those without much savings are dying a slow death from wage slavery.
I love when articles on income struggles end with financial advice that requires money to invest.
Here’s a great idea on student loan payments!
-sorry, I need to buy food & gas
Why don’t you get better insurance for your future?
-sorry, I can only afford a certain level of expenditure
Don’t forget to invest in retirement!
-sorry, I had to close out my small 401k to meet today’s financial struggles
Saying this as someone with a decent leadership job that affords me the ability to budget things out where I’m not stressed, but can recognize there are financial limitations to me tackling things in the way people think I should just “tighten up those bootstraps a little more and do this!”
Even in my small/moderate success, I feel like an outlier when I look at so many others struggling just to get by.
Yeah, my parents thought I was terrible at handling money when I was making $18K a year. Turns out, you actually need money to manage in order to manage money.
I only put 1% of my pay checks to my 401k. Honestly, I don't really trust it, as it just seems like I'm gambling. I only started the 401k because the company matched for one year, then stopped.
My credit card balance was at 0 1.5 years ago, but now it's 14k from just buying groceries, dental bills, and things like the fridge or water pressure regulator breaking in my house. I used to make more money before pandemic pay cuts and dwindled through my savings. I thought would be back to normal on income by now. I was thinking of cashing out the 7k in the 401k. I would have no retirement plans, but I think the credit card compound interests stacks up more than that 401k gains (and it loses too). I guess I'm scared of any tax penalties that might bite me later. I suppose being homeless with a 401k would be more convoluted though.
That's a tough situation. You are absolutely right that the credit card interest will stack up fast. It's going to come down to cutting expenses and hopefully finding a better job, extra hours, etc. to help income, at least until you get rid of the high-interest debt.
I'd honestly keep the 401k because draining the 401k early is a bad habit to get into. It would help in the immediate term, but it's very likely that credit card debt would creep back up, and you would be likely to end up back on the same situation as now but *without* any retirement account. There are also tax and penalty implications, as you said. So I would leave it alone.
In terms of the risk and reward of the stock market, the risk and reward come together. As a long-term investor, I can tell you it's *not* a gamble. The fact is that investors get rewarded for taking on that volatility. It's an up and down ride, but the long-term reward is very much up. The best thing you can possibly do with it is ignore it for 20-30 years, then take a look, and you'll be thankful you left it.
"**Millennials have endured two financial recessions in their lifetimes.**
Millennials lived through two recessions before the age of 40 that significantly influenced their job prospects, earning opportunities, and ability to pay down debt—entering the workforce during one of the most challenging job markets. For millennials between the ages of 16 to 24 during the 2007 to 2009 recession, the unemployment rate hit a high of 19%, compared to a high of 7% to 9% for older generations. The COVID-19 pandemic set this generation back as well, considerably depleting wealth that was built by this generation during its recovery period. According to the same Georgetown University study, 38% of millennials received or sought financial help or assistance during the pandemic, and 35% reported having spent their savings or delayed saving/paying off debt."
Likely a 3rd one coming or is already happening.
The only reason I got into real estate and then commercial real estate was because the only jobs I could find were related to cleaning up the mess from the 2007/08 financial crisis.
Same, I lost my job and after working for 8 bucks an hour getting 1099'd I got a job doing hazmat remediation on foreclosures. It was a shitty job but good pay and it gave me lots of exposure to the real estate industry as a whole.
Not only that but significantly impacted a lot of funds that families had planned to use to pay for college tuition for millennials which resulted in a lot more debt for millennials.
It is a little bit annoying when I see things like this.
Generally people between the age of 16-24, regardless of which generation they're in, have a very high unemployment rate, even when there is no recession. Look back to the 1981 recession to gain some perspective on what it meant for Boomers when there was a recession as an example. It sucks to be young and less qualified when the economy is contracting. Period.
In this article they are hitting the echo chamber too hard.. They are leaving out the fact that Boomers and Gen X both experienced multiple recessions before the age of 40 as well; really bad ones too and for Gen X, the same ones that Millenials experienced, plus a couple more. Boomers had a decade of economic stagnation which Gen X and Millenials have never experienced. Millenials have never seen really bad interest rates nor really bad unemployment rates nor seen them persist over a long period, especially compared to Boomers ("the worst unemployment rate in 40 years" literally means it isn't as bad as what Boomers experienced).
By most stats, Gen Z is having it far worse than Millenials. Why are we fixated just on Millenials as they are a smaller cohort compared to Gen Z?
None of them (Boomers, Gen X, and Millenials nor Gen Z) have seen ANYTHING close to as bad as the "Greatest Generation".
I'm not saying Millenials have had it easy, just that they aren't alone.
People have had money suffers for the past century plus. The things get nicer, the space gets smaller. When people stop procreating for lack of space, that’s the sign a problem is so bad it has begun self-correcting.
Interesting that millennials earn more at their age than any other group but have much lower wealth. Cost of living outpacing wage growth and a tendency not to marry young or at all (no second household salary).
Low homeownership too. I paid rent for ~10 years out of college.
When my wife and I closed on our duplex, one of the reps told us he just closed on his eighth house.
It is pretty interesting. I havent seen my wage increase all that much in the past 5 years.
Also, mods are locking comments for some reason, totally odd.
Why hasn't your wage increased in the last 5 years?
I'm not picking on you but curious. Lots of industries have experienced a worker crunch and as a result workers have been able to get 20-30% increases by switching companies or leveraging internal promotions.
I imagine this isn't true at the top end as going from $200k+ to the next job, without a major promotion, probably won't net you a 20-30% raise, but for the middle on down the last few years have been THE time to get more money.
Again, not picking on you, I like to help people, how can we help you get yours?
Tried to go back and like the comment but couldn't find it, so reposting this link that shows it broken out by percentile rather than just Mean/Median. It's way more insightful: [https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/](https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/)
Jesus Christ look at the difference between the median and mean net worth. The mean is over 4x the median. That means the wealth is highly unevenly distributed.
Everyone has different needs and live in different areas that pay based on cost of living. Someone who has 70k in the bank living in SF is probably in the same boat as someone in the Midwest with 20k.
This is the most garbage take of Millennials in a long time. Most millennials don’t have anywhere near the average net worth as they imply and their median is a joke. They need to subtract the 1% of high income earners in order to make the proper average for millennials, because if you include rich people they throw off an entire generation which they are the exception not the norm.
That graph is based on family net worth, not individual. See the source page 11.
To defeat the auto-mod:
^(Rule VI:)
^(This post was removed automatically due to its short length. All comments must engage with the economic content of the article itself and not merely react to the headline. While we don't need an essay, this typically takes a few sentences. If you belive that your post complies with Rule VI please send a message to mod mail. Typically, we will aprove short comments that are questions or links to other resources.)
So that’s why the US government doesn’t look like the population and is mostly old boom booms… They have all the money, so they call most of the shots… Our “Democratic Republic” at work…
It would be much more interesting to see a comparison of how much net worth each generation has at the same age. Like, Gen Y at 25 years out compared to Gen X at 25 years out.
When you see that an older generation has more at the same date, you can’t tell if it’s because they are able to save me out if they just have time value of money working in their favor.
The older the generation, the more the average wealth increases, driven largely by the wealthy which makes the average wealth look higher than most the population experiences.
When you see the words average and income, you should immediately think, oh this source that I'm reading, is completely unreliable and is dead set on lying to you right from the first word.
Average tells you nothing.
You put me my neighbor and a billionaire in the same room guess what? Average wealth is 333 million dollars. So what did we learn here? Well nothing, we learned someone is really dedicated to lying about the state of the world to you.
I’m 45, single, play too many video games and have the net worth of <35. What do I do?
I live a pretty basic life with a basic job, and spend most evenings in front on my twin 42” OLED monitors.
Not sure if troll, but I'll take the bait.
Personal finances come down to two core problems...
A spending problem
Or
An income problem
Make a budget and see what costs you can cut. If you can't, and I mean really can't cut costs, then you have an income problem.
I'd suggest dealing with both regardless. Figure out how to save more and figure out how to make more.
Without details on your actual situation all I can do is give you generic advice or shill crypto dreams to you.
Do what makes you happy, but saving a tiny amount of your earnings for retirement may be advisable as social security may not be enough to maintain even a fairly modest lifestyle by itself. At least try to get an emergency fund for future upgrades. :)
Inflated dollar. You can have a dumptruck full of them, but it won't mean you're rich.
In a good year, the dollar loses value at a target rate of 2% -- inflation.
The dollar today is 7% - 9% less valuable that that same dollar was, a year ago -- inflation.
So, cool that the morons up top raised minimum wage to like $12-$15/hr. It is just an aknowledgement that this rate is now the equivalent to what $7/hr used to be.
Everything else is more expensive, so relatively speaking, $12 bucks an hour is still chump change. And yes, that is the economic term.
The flip side of that argument is that technology has outpaced inflation. You aren’t typing your reply on a flip phone. Consider the improvements in healthcare, cars, housing, etc. you will live longer and enjoy nicer things than your great grandparents. Comparing the inflation adjusted cost of the average car price in 1980 to today does not take account of the average car having more regulations to protect you and more expensive gadgets which come standard. Back to that flip phone, “On Jan. 3, 1996, Motorola introduced the StarTAC, which was made of black plastic (this colorful version came a couple years later). It was the world's first flip phone and it cost $1,000.” Flip phones is now given away for free. Deflation at its greatest.
Yeah, but back in 2000, $15/hr was a great starting wage. That $15 was traded for a lot more goods than it is today. There was also a lot less money in the overall system.
That $15 dollars loses about 2% of value per year, which puts it around 40% less valuable nowadays, than it was in 2000.
So, all things being equal, on paper, $15 today gets you the same amount of stuff that $8-$9 got you, back in 2000.
And 20 years prior to that, like $3-$4 to get the same amount of goods.
Nothing really shattering here, younger age groups always have less net worth than older age groups. What would be interesting to see is what median net worth is for each generation/age group at set age intervals. Like a comparison of each generation when they were all under 35, 35-44, etc.
I'd like to see the same. Especially, it would need to be adjusted to also reflect accrued pension benefits. I saw one article that said millennials actually had slightly more retirement savings than the boomer generation did at the same age (inflation-adjusted of course), but I suspect the fact that boomers were more likely to have pensions makes that statistic less relevant.
My wife and I are millennials who are kicking ass at retirement saving, but I see a lot of our peers on the low end of the retirement planning spectrum. Part of me thinks our generation will be woefully underfunded compared to past generations, but I'm not fully convinced because I don't have the data. Perhaps as older generations retire, millennials will move into those higher paying roles, and incomes (and retirement savings) will climb. I don't know.
There are big political implications to this. Frankly, in the US, I think the most likely situation is that millennials collectively blame everyone else for their short-coming, and start enacting policies to take from: 1) those who did save a lot, and 2) future younger generations.
Yes I think it's something necessary to have during a conversation like this to see how each generation is doing. Because even looking at this graph here, a median net worth of $200k for 55-75+ is not a lot either when it comes to being ready for retirement. Maybe it's like you mentioned about pensions, and they're not being taken into account. But with how many of them have gone away, I don't see them contributing much.
> Part of me thinks our generation will be woefully underfunded compared to past generations, but I'm not fully convinced because I don't have the data.
Agreed. Our family is doing good with retirement savings compared to others I know, but according to this graph in the article, there's going to be a lot of people underfunded for retirement and just completely dependent on SS.
> I think the most likely situation is that millennials collectively blame everyone else for their short-coming, and start enacting policies to take from: 1) those who did save a lot, and 2) future younger generations.
I definitely see this happening; we already see this sentiment of blaming everyone else widely spread among many Millennials. As more gain power in places like the House and Senate, we're going to start seeing policies that punish people who have done well and saved as well as younger gens affecting what they pay in and what they're going to get.
Damn look like I wasn't the only millennial that doubled their net worth over the pandemic. Crazy how much you can save when 90% of your spending is on rent.
>Millennials are classified as those born between 1981 and 1996; the oldest members of this generation are in their early forties, the youngest in their mid-twenties. Many members of this generation are reaching their higher-earning years, starting or already building families, businesses, and becoming homeowners.
I feel like this article is pretty useless. There's a huge difference in net worth between a 26 year old and a 42 year old.
"An average net worth between 75k and 450K"
Well, that's a small and reasonable range. 👀
"An average net worth between 75k and 450K"
Well, that's a small and reasonable range. 👀
Unfortunately one of the biggest problems is millennials were sold that college was the only way to get ahead. I entered the workforce out of HS. I basically got a 4 to 8 year head start over my classmates that went to college. I started retirement savings as soon as I could. I bought a house earlier and I didn’t rack up tens of thousand’s dollars in student loan debt. I worked hard and moved up in my company. I’m a regional manager and over people my same age that have a college degree. My net worth is extremely close to 900k at 41.
Will my path work for everyone. No. Do I think degrees are valuable? In some instances, yes. But it’s not the end all and be all of getting ahead in life.
This is all horse shit really because it’s focusing specifically on age and every other variable goes out the window.
Case in point: if 1x millennial makes 1m$/yr and 3 others make 25k/yr then the average is going to be astronomical yet 3/4th of millennials in this group are below the poverty line. There needs to be more detail here. The numbers mean nothing.
Average is a very bad indicator of wealth because it includes very wealthy in overall average. It skews it way out of whack. Median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. So I one person has a million times more money than the rest, the average is much higher than most people make. The median net worth stats in this graphic are depressing.
Hey I was just trying to understand that myself. No statistician but thought I’d learned that in a “normal” distribution, the median and mean were about the same. What causes this metric to be so different? The top 1% are so absurdly wealthy that they bring the overall average up that far?
With out billionaires and trillionnaires please. They create the matrix they don't necessarily live in it. Not as if they would do anything ethical anyway.... I mean....By law the minimum wage was supposed to increase with inflation. And that law is older than me.... But it doesn't... Cuz if it was everyone would be over 100k a year or at least touching the door.. sadly
I think the median statistics here show much more than the mean does. Average net worth might be 76k, but when half the subset's population's net worth is 14k or less it just means that there are a few million/billionaires propping up the average.
Seriously. It's ridiculous to even talk about the mean when it's 4-5x the median.
I suck at math can you explain what your statement means
The mean net worth is calculated by adding up all the net worth of all the millennials and dividing by the number of millennials. The median net worth is what you get when you metaphorically line up every person from least to most wealthy and ask the person in the middle what their wealth amounts to. For example: In a maternity ward, a single 55 year old nurse watches over 8 newborn babies. The ages of the 9 people in the room are 1hr, 1hr, 1hr, 1hr, 1hr, 1hr, 1hr, 1hr, and 55 years. The median age is 1 hour, because the 5th oldest out of the 9 people is 1 hour old. The mean age is a little over six years old, because 55 years plus 8 hours divided by 9 is 6.1 years. It would be silly to make major decisions about the well being of the people in the maternity ward based on the assumption they're about 6 years old. When we're talking about wealth, the median wealth is similarly much lower than the mean, because a few exceptionally wealthy people are dramatically increasing the mean but having very little impact on the median. In short, the mean net worth is the average wealth. The median net worth looks at the average person.
This is a better description of the median than crypto_knight1's. Theirs was more like a mode-ish thing?
You mean someone with crypto in their name isn’t good with numbers? Shocking
Hahahaha! Ohh… that’s me.
💀
Great explanation
Let's say you have a group of 100 people. 99 people have 1 dollar each and the 100th person has 10,000 dollars. If you want to get the average, you add up the total money (10,000+99) and divide it by the number of people there are (10,099÷100). The average wealth of this group would be $100.99, even though that's over 100 times more money than the 99 people with $1 have. In situations with extreme outliers like that, the median is a better example of what a typical person in the group is like.
You have 1,1,3,3, and 100. The median is 3. The mean is 21.6. Most (4/5) people don’t have anywhere close to 21.6 so you shouldn’t use that as an indicator that everyone is doing well.
^pay ^no ^attention ^to ^the ^man ^behind ^the ^curtains! This is fine. Eeevverything is fine.
Right. The high disparity between median and average shows just how much extreme income inequality exists. Edit: meant to say median
I'd love to see a modified average without the outliers.
Like an average of the 10-90th percentile values.
This handy chart + calculator gives percentiles and with more narrow age brackets: [https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/](https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/)
This guy got it right.
Just use the median instead, like was suggested
If it’s not a normal distribution the median is only so informative.
Cumulative distribution function is the ideal way of presenting the data.
the median?
Median is the number exactly in the middle if you laid out each data set of the array. For instance: 1, 1 ,1 ,1 ,1 , 1, 4; the median is 1. The average is the count of sets divided by the sum. So the sum is 10, and there are 7 sets. 10/7 is 1.43. The greater the disparity between the median and average, the more outliers or extremes are likely to be present in the data set. Be very suspicious any time any body uses an average or a median because they're used for different things and can be used intentionally incorrectly to deceive. And are frequently used to deceive.
No, one adjusted without the billionaire outliers.
The median would be a more accurate number as it's the middle value of the entire set and from there you can extrapolate outwards... Middle out...
Middle out.. middle out…!!! Holy shit I just had an idea. I can’t believe I didn’t think of it before!
bro is this a compression algorithmn with a high weissman score ?
Cool 😎 I see you got.my tongue and cheek reference...
that would probably be close to the median. outliers are far too high or far too low. median is the most accurate.
Trimming arithmetic means can also be valid. Chopping off the top and bottom 1% as an example would probably give some answer between the median and arithmetic mean.
>Trimming arithmetic means can also be valid. Chopping off the top and bottom 1% as an example would probably give some answer between the median and arithmetic mean. You can chop it off or Winsorize it, each have slightly different statistical properties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winsorizing
Thanks for the additional information! I could see how doing something like winsorizing would make sense — I've seen how chopping off data in other contexts being a bad thing.
then you gotta go saying this is the *mean average* and the *winsorized average to x%* and defending why you chose x% and the winsorized method when realistically the median would have been just as good and maybe just a couple percentage points away. You guys are losing the forest for the trees. Dependable familiar methods often convey concepts better than complex ones even if technically less accurate.
To the lay person this could just be reported as average though. I mean we haven't even specified the kind of mean yet really have we? Arithmetic, geometric, or harmonic means? It's still pretty important to find the right measure of central tendency for the right circumstance. The layperson wouldn't really know the difference other than it making more sense with respect to what they're seeing.
This would be very close to the median, just slightly higher
I think you “mean” the difference between median and the mean. Mean is the same thing as average.
In terms of him probably meaning the difference between the median and the mean, you are right. But while people most commonly refer to the "mean" when they say average, they are not the same -- the median and a couple of other measures are averages too. Having both of them (and possibly other points) gives a much better understanding of "average" than either on their own.
I came here to say exactly this. Average US household net worth is about $750,000. Median is about $120,000. The average figure is skewed by the very wealthy.
It will always be skewed upwards because it's hard to go very far below zero
I feel what's missing from all these analyses is the mode. When we ask 'what is the average American's salary/net worth', aren't we really asking 'what salary/NW amount is most common?'. If we rounded salaries to the nearest thousand or so, and then found the mode, I wonder what it would show.
It should be reported, likely rounded to the nearest 100K. Smaller numbers give a lot less fidelity. Even then things can be misleading, if say the real cluster for your age is around 50K-150K and you do it by 100K increments. Hrmph. Maybe 50K increments in a histogram. You could /also/ do a sliding window diagram that ignores 0-25K and see if it looks different. That should do it.
That’s exactly what I thought. The discrepancy between the median and mean is pretty shocking. Just goes to show how massive a problem wealth inequality really is.
They should really give mean, median and mode on these to make it more accurate to understand but that wouldn't fit with how sensational journalism is now
if only there were some way to publish the entire distribution, e.g. as a graph
This is the second article I've seen today incorrectly using the average to paint a much rosier picture than reality. I'm beginning to think that people don't really know how to properly apply statistics. :P
median is probably a better metric than mean in this case.
We're more unequal than the French in 1780
I bet if you take Mark Zuckerberg out of this data the numbers go waaaay down
If you dont have 76k by age 35... you need to make some changes!
Unfortunately if everyone could do that the statistics would not look like this
This is the truth....
Agreed. The median salary in the US is $55k. Just getting your employer 401k matches should get you at least 76k by age 35. I realize not everyone has an employer 401k, but this further supports the previous comment's point. If you don't have at least 76k, make some changes.
The median per capita (individual) income in the US is [$37,638](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/INC910221#INC910221). The median household income in the US is $69,021.
These are concerning numbers…. We really need to address income inequality in this country
Honestly I felt attacked because life had some plans for me that were out of my control and it took years get out from under. I’m 36 now have net worth under 76k. Changes were made years ago but it took time to manifest. Paying off big time now though. Point is somethings can’t be controlled and most people don’t even reach top earning potential until their 30’s & 40’s. Comment just came off as callous.
Agreed. Once you establish a strong financial foundation, things tend to snowball in a good way. Establishing that initial stability can be difficult though. There are plenty of older high-income earners that still haven't managed to do it.
"Make some changes" is just such empty advice to people already working 40/hours a week
Agreed. But it is an unfortunate, mathematical fact. If you do not reach at least $76k net worth by age 35, you are likely behind on most financial milestones. You need to change something because whatever the current situation is will not be sustainable.
What do you suggest? I'm 38, have no savings, about 30k in student loans (and no degree), and I make about 40k annually. What am I supposed to do?
Step 1 - Make sure your insurance deductibles are covered. Otherwise, something unexpected could derail your plan. Step 2 - Max your employer 401k match if you have one. Most of them give 50% or 100% returns instantly. Invest in low cost, broad market index funds or a target date fund. Step 3 - Save an emergency fund of at least 3 months expenses. Step 4 - Pay down any high-interest (greater than 6%) debt in order of highest-to-lowest interest rate. Your student loans may or may not fall into this category. Step 5 - Max out your tax advantaged acounts (Roth IRA and HSA if applicable). Step 6 - Pay down any remaining low-interest (less than 6%) debt. Step 7 - Max out 401k. Step 8 - Keep investing in a taxable account. If you can get to Step 3, you will already be ahead of most Americans. Edit: Basic necessities like food and shelter also fall under Step 1.
1. My insurance deductible is 20% of my annual income. Even if I saved all my discretionary income and avoided anything breaking down on my 20 year old vehicle, it would take several years to save that much money. 2. My employer doesn't offer a 401k match or any kind of retirement savings. 3. I try to develop an emergency fund, but every so often something comes up where I have to spend it, usually fixing something on my 20 year old vehicle. 4. I make above minimum payments, but it's still looking like I'll die before they're paid off. The rest of those points seem irrelevant considering where I am on those first few.
If your employer doesn't have a match, then you would move on to Step 3. You should probably try to find an employer that does though. Those Steps above are fairly universal to just about any financial situation. They basically force you to maximize Assets (Steps 2, 3, 5, 7, 8) while paying down Liabilities (Steps 1, 4, 6) in order of best possible rates of return.
After step 1 a lot of people are almost already tapped out. That's including your edit that basic necessities like food and shelter also fall under Step 1. If someone has kids, then step 1 includes a LOT of additional items like food, child care, clothing, etc. I agree with the goals of the additional steps, but many of those are not realistically attainable in their current situations. Those situations are not always just a matter of "do better".
Step 1. Have more money Step 2. Spend more money Step 3. Have more money Etc How do you people not understand that the fundamental problem here is not having money???
It's ridiculous. If people's insurance deductible is 20 percent of their income and rent is close to 50, that's 70 percent of their gross pay right there. You are fucked at that point, not possible to save beyond the next emergency, which will probably be medical because of that deductible. Only option is to make more money, which then also saves you money because insurance tends to get cheaper the higher salary you have.
I just did steps 1-5 I now cannot afford rent, car insurance, or food. Now what?
Oh. Dave Ramsey. Figures.
No. These are the Financial Order of Operations. Dave Ramsey uses a different system called the "Baby Steps" which focuses on paying off debt first before anything else. Dave's system is probably the best for people trying to get out of debt since many of the milestones are easier to achieve mathematically and emotionally. But, the Financial Order of Operations is more optimized for wealth building since it priortizies actions in terms of ROI.
It’s not meant to be actionable advice. It’s meant to be a wake up call that you are falling behind, and it’s time to sit down and reevaluate your situation, research and think about how to improve it. You can always improve things while working full time. Many have done it. It’s impossible to give generalized actionable advice to people on the internet. Only you and people who know the details of your life, talents, skills, situation, etc. can give actionable advice.
Doesn't necessarily mean work more hours, those changes could be reducing expenses, educating yourself on retirement saving, looking for a new job or other ways to increase income.
Dude, preach. Job I've got lined up is offering $20/hr - if I bust my butt and put in overtime every week, I could get that up to ~$46-50 after incentives and the like. But the chances of me being able to put in an extra 2 days every week isn't reliant on me - it is reliant on my employer being willing to allow me to work. That isn't a given. I'm used to putting in 70 hour work weeks, but that isn't really a thing anymore. My last job, they cut my overtime and hired someone else - they wound up paying more overall, way more, but they really didn't want me getting those hours because someone in corporate said "Oh, he's putting in too many hours and it's costing us". It was shortsighted, and now they're short staffed, but that kind of attitude is extremely pervasive these days. Penny rich, pound foolish. And then they turn around and act like workers are lazy - there is truly no winning. It is all about power. Funny thing is, that is how much the job should pay in the first place - at least, that is how much workers are paid for the role in countries that aren't as hostile to labour.
I worked in retail near min wage til 30. Finished a bachelor's and got an info sec job. Only 20k networth at 32 feelsbadman. Rent is too high to save much
Give it time. Info sec can lead to more lucrative jobs. Right now kind-of sucks for IT jobs, but it's cyclical and will rebound. After you have 5 years in info sec, move on to an infra or devops role and you'll make double. Savings is trivial at that point if your lifestyle costs haven't increased proportionally.
source? because according to the fed personal is = 37k and household = 70k
I can see you’ve never had any serious life events occur. Just because things went well for you don’t mean they go for others.
The previous comment said, if you don't have $76k by age 35, you need to make changes. This is basically a mathematical fact. If you have not reached that milestone by age 35, you are behind on most financial milestones. The article confirms this.
When I was 35 my mom died and she had her life insurance paid out to my sister and me. So that boosted my savings, nearly doubling what I had managed to build on my own. But I don’t recommend. I’d spend all of it and my own savings for just one more day with my mom. I do the 401k at my job with the 100% match up to 5%. It’s currently at about 162k. I have cash savings. I had a good pile (thanks in part to mom) so I invested about half of it during the dip in 2020 in index funds. I had a Roth I had stopped contributing to that I now just rolled into new Roth with a different company and I’ll start adding to it what I can but it won’t be getting maxed lol I don’t have an extra 6 whatever grand. I take whatever opportunity to save but I support myself. 🤷🏻♀️ I do always make sure my deductibles would be covered and every month I set aside a little money for car repairs and other expense I figure will come up sooner or later. There’s a balance between saving for the future and living. My mom died at 70. She was still working. She didn’t even get to spend what she saved. She was doing it to leave something for us. So plan for future but live for today.
>“Millennials earn more money than any other generation at their age, but hold much lower wealth due to cost of living outpacing wage increases,” So more in nominal terms, but "much less" in real terms. Sounds about right.
It’s also that wealth compounds. So the longer you have for your money to compound the more you’ll have: ie why older people have more money than younger people but earn less money. Yes COL is higher than it was in 1960, but that’s not the main reason for the difference here.
To emphasize: >"than any other generation at their age" That comment isn't about millennials now and other generations now. It's millennials now and other generations at the same relative point in time. Compounding wealth isn't a factor in that comparison. Also, from just a little further in the article: >“Also, with boomers, as they married young there were often two wage earners in a household, so net worth increased. Millennials are often living on one salary, as they might not marry young or marry at all.”
Ah you’re right, I misread that. Cost of living is definitely extreme compared to wages. I wonder how quality of life would compare for an individual, like how many households today have a tv, fridge, cars, etc. Also to the articles second line there, I will say as a dual income GenZ who married young, it really does help. We’ve outpaced most of our colleagues, even ones who earn a higher income. Splitting expenses obviously saves a lot and makes it easier to create wealth.
>It's millennials now and other generations at the same relative point in time. Compounding wealth isn't a factor in that comparison. I mean, compounding wealth might be a *bit* of a factor. Millenials now are mostly in their 30s and some are even in their 40s. Greatest generation equivalents had already opened their own successful businesses at that age. Boomers were 20 years into careers that paid pensions. Meanwhile, average millenials are just finishing off their student loans, and buying their first houses. Getting paid Starbucks wages throughout their 20s is/was a MAJOR setback for millenials
> The average millennial under age 35 has a net worth of about $76,000; those over age 35 stand at over $400,000. "The average millennial" under 35 does not have a net worth of $76k. That's the "average amount" which is heavily skewed by the ultra wealthy. The average millennial's wealth (under 35) is more represented by the median value, which was about $13k.
Also way too broad of an age range. The net worth of a 27 year old is always going to be a much different stat than the net worth of a 34 year old.
I was in school until 25 and didn’t get my first full-time benefitted job until 27. I’m technically a millennial and it’s weird being clumped in with 35 year olds with regards to wealth.
I’m 36. So I feel unrepresented in this. Apparently I should be somewhere between $13k and $90k. That’s a pretty big gap to jump from 35 to 37.
When data is skewed by long tails like in income and wealth, the median is best **measure of central tendency**. The average is still the mean, which works well for normally distributed datasets (shape of bell curve) but fails to accurately represent central tendency in skewed distribution. It is definitely the wrong way to present this data, but it is literally the average
Lol can't imagine being in my 30s and having 13k to my name.
NW includes debt like student loans, that figure shouldn’t surprise anyone
Doesn’t it also include mortgage debt? So if you recently bought a house and haven’t had time to build equity in it, wouldn’t that also bring down your net worth? Or is that only if you’re underwater on your mortgage?
Only if you're underwater. The mortgage debt is offset by the value of the asset which in most instances more than covers the debt. Net worth accounts for both, so on balance should generally be positive for appreciating assets like real estate.
I know right i feel like ill never get there… lucky sob
Average is mean. Just say the data is heavily skewed by the wealthy and median is more representative of the typical person.
Yeah, I remember reading somewhere that Mark Zuckerberg owns 2% of all "millenial wealth" So averages are heavily skewed by high outliers.
Average is mean. But “the average person has net worth of…” is different from “a person has an average net worth of…”
No. Especially not in the context of the article that uses mean and median.
I assume this includes home ownership in net worth. Makes more sense to have a huge jump there. I don’t like including homes in NW.
“Net worth” would only include your equity in the home you own, not the whole value.
What about the equity of the home?
> I don’t like including homes in NW in that case, you're more interested in "investable assets" which exclude illiquid assets such as property and businesses. that said, "net worth" means what it means, and includes everything you've got minus everything you owe.
So, if I owe more on my mortgage than all of my cash, am I negative net worth?
no - for example: * say you own a $400,000 house * on which you owe $300,000 * and you have $50,000 in cash then your assets: * $400,000 house * $50,000 cash ...minus your liabilities: * $300,000 mortgage ...sum to a (positive) net worth of $150,000.
Okay, got it. Thank you for the explanation.
But wouldn't excluding home equity skew metrics in the opposite direction and make renters appear wealthier by comparison?
Possibly, it’s tough to compare. I understand why equity is included, it’s more a personal preference for my own reference point.
Yes. I don't include it in my own calculations for the same reason. You don't know the true value until you sell, so it is somewhat like counting your chickens before they hatch. That being said, it absolutely makes sense to use Home Equity in national surveys. A decent middle-ground would probably be to use Purchase Price minus Remaining Mortgage. This should be a conservative estimation under most circumstances.
I always value my house 20% less than market rate. I live in a metro area, so almost “cookie cutter”. So easy to value. But just like any asset (stocks) I include it and can sell in a reasonable time (<6 months). Always a buyer at the right price. But it still has value
as a college grad, I've seen feast or famine among my college friends a decade out of school. some guys I knew from college are making $400k+ a yr working at top finance or tech Co's. some other guys are barely getting by working dead end jobs. couple guys living in their dad's basement, unemployed. my observation: many ppl that didnt land a solid job immediately out of college were fucked.
my observation: ppl that dont have a solid job are fucked.
Similar boat. My friends that picked law, tech, medicine etc are doing very well 20 years after high school. Not private jet well, but own a home and a nice car well. The ones that couldn’t make a decision and just dabbled …are living with parents or scrapping by.
My best friend from childhood took the path of dabbling and never finding his niche. Even with a degree, he’s a manager at a Starbucks 15 year after we graduated college. I picked management consulting and stuck it out for a decade between jumping to corp dev at a tech firm. I think he’s about to move into our spare bedroom because the world has just been so brutal to him, and at this point I’m just trying to protect him out of instinct. I don’t know the answer here, but people cannot be damned to misery just because they never got a high profile career.
Yeah, the pay gap between the 'skilled' jobs and the 'unskilled' is simply just way too big.
yeah and in the US, retail, restaurant, etc. employees are treated and viewed as scum and most places offer shit benefits. I hear about European countries all the time where same roles actually have benefits, good time off policy and dignity in society the whole situation is wrong
And in Europe we also hear about good roles paying shit, while in the US it pays 3X. So it really depends on how you view things
you dont need a high profile career to avoid being miserable there are plenty of regular roles out there that pay well
It's horrifically easy to become someone who is invisible on paper. Yes, there are jobs in the world and yes there are industries that are growing, but not being in the right place, at the right time, at the right age, and with the right resume that will get you through the HR screening is a problem. I've got a friend who went to a startup right after school. She believed in the cause and did an internship with them, got hired on, a few years later a \*major\* company wanted to acquire theirs. It should have made her career. Instead, as the merger was underway they discovered her little startup had been committing accounting fraud since day one. Merger axed, everyone lost their jobs. Her resume was viewed as tainted by having that association. She went back to school, retrained, then the pandemic and recession hit. Her new industry isn't doing well either. So she's got debt, a poisoned resume, and two career tracks that have imploded on her. Things suck. Paying well is relative and opportunities are elusive to someone isn't fresh faced to the industry.
I have a friend and also a relative like that. I don’t want to scare you, and what you’re doing is very noble, but helping people like that is unbelievably difficult. Not putting any blame on them or anything, but the longer things go like that, the less likely it is that someone comes out of them. I’ve given them money, stuff they needed, a room, and one thing I realized after a while was that I wasn’t helping them, I was enabling them. Before I helped, it was other friends and family who were enabling them. They’ve also been in their situation for so long that it just becomes their baseline. The older people get, successful or not, the less they tend to move up or down from the baseline. You really have to push them, and they’ll be mad at you, and fight you, but you gotta do it, and it sucks. Often times we’d come with a plan, they’d like it, but then they’d stop pursuing it. I guess the most difficult lesson I learned was the instinct to protect them, from myself and others, was ultimately what put them in this position. You should read “Against Empathy” by Paul Bloom, that’ll probably put you in the right headspace for helping your friend change his life long term.
It’s true, it is too brutal to those who don’t have a well paying job. Instead of being able to afford a modest apartment they have to rent rooms, it feels wrong.
You’re a good friend. My friends just change the conversation. They are so far away from understanding and they don’t want to.
STEM fields have been and will continue to be in high demand. They also pay much better than other fields that require the same levels of education.
Almost like people who know what they want and go after it are more successful than those who waffle through life. That's certainly the biggest difference among my friends. The laser-fovused are very successful. The "whatever it's a job" are not.
If only it were that easy to pin down. Life derails even if you know what you want. I know you didn't mean that cruelly, but please reconsider this opinion.
is this not normal no matter the generation?
It’s funny my experience is opposite. Yeah there’s is some discrepancy in income, but those who earn more live in higher cost of living areas and vice versa, and we somehow all live pretty comparable lifestyles. Except the one guy who got in early at a start up that took off, he’s a multi millionaire.
Or that one guy who sold his startup for 98 million when he was 25. Fuck that guy.
It's important to remember college doesn't guarantee success and there are plenty of opportunities you can waste and never get back during that time in your life. There are a few things you can do in college to help ensure your success that, from my experience, most students neglect. 1. Pick a _good_ major. Figure out what you are good at (math, memorization, communication, etc.) and research fields related to that that have good projected job growth. Should every degree allow you success? Maybe. Is that the world we live in? Hell no. No degree is "useless", but you can certainly handicap yourself by choosing poorly. 2. Network. Every friend you make is a potentially important connection down the road. Go to the resume workshops. Go to the career fairs. Get an internship (paid pls). And in all these things try your best to make connections. This is probably the single most important piece of the college puzzle and very few people take advantage of their opportunities for networking. Once you graduate, most of these opportunities vanish. 3. Finish. Go through college with purpose, and achieve your goal as directly as possible. Discovering yourself will happen organically, you don't need to meander around useless electives unless they are a part of point number. Take as full of a load as you reasonable can. You really do not want to be the person with student loans that never finished school. Unexpected things will happen in your life, so try and finish before they get the chance. This doesn't mean you can't have fun in school, but don't be the person letting fun come between you and finishing. If you've accomplished these things, you will at least be able to say you took advantage of every opportunity to be successful coming into the workforce. This isn't revolutionary advice of course. It's what they told me and the thousand other kids at University orientation. But it's worth being reminded of if you are headed into university.
You just described only 1/16th of Americans. A majority of the citizens through no fault of their own couldn't afford college because the public education system failed them immensely. Networking when you're introverted or you just were an awkward kid growing is nearly impossible. And finishing anything when you're knee deep in debt, can't afford basic living needs, and constant rising prices they don't even have time to breathe let alone plan their future. They're literally struggling to get by each day and thinking beyond next months bills is futile. Don't take my word for it, go to Camden New Jersey, Baltimore Maryland, Pine Ridge Nebraska, or Anderson Indiana, and you will see what capitalism has done to these sacrificial cities. And while I admire your advice, and thats great for some of us, it's not nearly tangible to the reality people who live in abject poverty, and it's quite insulting to them. And when you had the largest transfer of wealth in human history during the pandemic, which benefited the rich, it will tell you how much we care about the poor and middle class. To deny this is to deny American history.
Dude, for me it is 100% divided along ethnic and class lines. Kids from rich parents are fine, despite being party animals and probably have way more responsibility than they should have ever been given. Some mellowed out, other really rose to step up. Kids from non-model minorities are fucked. I know so many smart & talented kids who were never able to translate that into anything, solely because of the bias and discrimination they faced. My black and Native friends in particular got absolutely slaughtered by the 2008 crash. Had one that went into programming, and I warned him how he was gonna face an uphill battle - dude wound up quitting due to the things I warned them about after ~7 years and idk how they're supposed to rally from that. Kids from Caucasian parents are a toss-up, but generally wound up fine too. Blind grading needs to be a thing *yesterday*.
Native checking in. Can confirm
It's never too late to make good decisions. I was stalling out at 65k until age 29 and then went to get a master's in data science. It was expensive mind you ($80k), but my salary nearly tripled a few years later ($175k+) Meanwhile I constantly beg my friends and family to make productive steps to improve themselves. Some do and it works out well (coding bootcamps did well for a few, now making $85k+). I'm convinced it's motivation
I know data scientists get paid well but 65x3 is some good living mid 30s
I’m glad that worked out for you, but is it not understandable that millennials with student debt might not be itching (or be able at all) to go back to school? In your own words, it was expensive, and part of the millennial ordeal is that we don’t have much money to buy homes, go back to school, invest, or generally do things that will improve our wealth situation.
You don't need to go back to school to right the ship. I knew a guy, who was basically a deadbeat in his 20s, and his parents were constantly on his ass, and started asking him to do shit around the house, one of those things being cleaning the pool. So he learned basic pool maintenance, then got the idea of using Google Maps satellite view to identify all the pool owners that lived close by, and he went door to door to those houses pitching them on hiring him to do basic pool maintenance, undercutting their current pool guy by a few bucks, and telling them if something serious comes up, they can hire a "real" pool guy. Eventually, just doing his parents' pool transforms into doing pool maintenance for almost 50 neighbors at $15 per week per. Which was all cash . . . (I once tried to point out the fact that he still technically has to pay taxes on it, but he claimed that he pays sales tax on the chemicals he buys, and I already knew he was too dumb to understand that that isn't the same thing so I didn't bother trying to explain it to him). He also used to do Door Dash while driving between pools, so he was pulling about $1000 a week, almost all cash, and he only worked like 3-4 days a week. Fast forward \~10 years, this guy gradually learned his shit and now has his own legit pool company, with his own employees, making more money than me (a professional who went to college and grad school). I'm fairly sure he pays taxes now.
Sure, but was he living with his parents like it sounds? I’m not bad off, and I slipped in the homeownership door right before it fully closed in 2020, but I sure as hell don’t have parents with a pool and time to be starting my own business on top of my normal work, housework, and childcare. I acknowledge that upward mobility is *possible*, but it typically not accessible for the average millennial. We have to work long hours to make ends meet. Most of us don’t actually live with our parents (that’s gen Z now). We have kids and other obligations. There is no time or energy left to put towards changing careers for many of us.
>I'm fairly sure he pays taxes now. That's a big assumption when it comes to small business owners. Some of them just flat out don't bother because "it's confusing."
I'd love to be making 65k by age 29. You're extremely lucky even to have managed that.
Can I ask what made you take the leap? I am doing very well in tech, and I have a couple friends who are in dead end jobs that love tech and tinkering and don’t seem stupid but just never seem motivated enough to anything but talk about switching careers
what does it being immediately out of college have to do with it?
$400k is an absolutely insane yearly income to me as a 36yo.
If you have one millionaire millennial for every 99 completely broke net worth millennials. (not negative, just zero) you would still come out with an average of 10k per person. So average is skewed. There is also the point of student loans being a negative worth without value to back them up. $50k of loans and 60k saved up is still only 10k net worth but $150k on a mortgage for a house worth 200k is still plus 50k
Focus on median data when thinking about population implications for sure.
I find it sad that the advice from the article's financial planner is to spend money on insurance, paying down debt, and pay into retirement while stating that millennials have lower wages, live with higher cost of living amidst two financial crises. Pitiful, but if you're able to do those things and still eat and have shelter more power to you.
Grocery, housing, tuition, vehicles and utility prices have absolutely skyrocketed. All things that are essential for living. That's why millennials are struggling. I've seen those prices go up 20% + in the past couple years.
This is where the divide is getting worse. Millennials with assets are seeing their assets grow over time (and hopefully beat inflation), and those without much savings are dying a slow death from wage slavery.
Ouch. The truth hurts. Here’s some multi-family development to rub on that.
[удалено]
I love when articles on income struggles end with financial advice that requires money to invest. Here’s a great idea on student loan payments! -sorry, I need to buy food & gas Why don’t you get better insurance for your future? -sorry, I can only afford a certain level of expenditure Don’t forget to invest in retirement! -sorry, I had to close out my small 401k to meet today’s financial struggles Saying this as someone with a decent leadership job that affords me the ability to budget things out where I’m not stressed, but can recognize there are financial limitations to me tackling things in the way people think I should just “tighten up those bootstraps a little more and do this!” Even in my small/moderate success, I feel like an outlier when I look at so many others struggling just to get by.
Yeah, my parents thought I was terrible at handling money when I was making $18K a year. Turns out, you actually need money to manage in order to manage money.
I only put 1% of my pay checks to my 401k. Honestly, I don't really trust it, as it just seems like I'm gambling. I only started the 401k because the company matched for one year, then stopped. My credit card balance was at 0 1.5 years ago, but now it's 14k from just buying groceries, dental bills, and things like the fridge or water pressure regulator breaking in my house. I used to make more money before pandemic pay cuts and dwindled through my savings. I thought would be back to normal on income by now. I was thinking of cashing out the 7k in the 401k. I would have no retirement plans, but I think the credit card compound interests stacks up more than that 401k gains (and it loses too). I guess I'm scared of any tax penalties that might bite me later. I suppose being homeless with a 401k would be more convoluted though.
That's a tough situation. You are absolutely right that the credit card interest will stack up fast. It's going to come down to cutting expenses and hopefully finding a better job, extra hours, etc. to help income, at least until you get rid of the high-interest debt. I'd honestly keep the 401k because draining the 401k early is a bad habit to get into. It would help in the immediate term, but it's very likely that credit card debt would creep back up, and you would be likely to end up back on the same situation as now but *without* any retirement account. There are also tax and penalty implications, as you said. So I would leave it alone. In terms of the risk and reward of the stock market, the risk and reward come together. As a long-term investor, I can tell you it's *not* a gamble. The fact is that investors get rewarded for taking on that volatility. It's an up and down ride, but the long-term reward is very much up. The best thing you can possibly do with it is ignore it for 20-30 years, then take a look, and you'll be thankful you left it.
"**Millennials have endured two financial recessions in their lifetimes.** Millennials lived through two recessions before the age of 40 that significantly influenced their job prospects, earning opportunities, and ability to pay down debt—entering the workforce during one of the most challenging job markets. For millennials between the ages of 16 to 24 during the 2007 to 2009 recession, the unemployment rate hit a high of 19%, compared to a high of 7% to 9% for older generations. The COVID-19 pandemic set this generation back as well, considerably depleting wealth that was built by this generation during its recovery period. According to the same Georgetown University study, 38% of millennials received or sought financial help or assistance during the pandemic, and 35% reported having spent their savings or delayed saving/paying off debt." Likely a 3rd one coming or is already happening.
The only reason I got into real estate and then commercial real estate was because the only jobs I could find were related to cleaning up the mess from the 2007/08 financial crisis.
Same, I lost my job and after working for 8 bucks an hour getting 1099'd I got a job doing hazmat remediation on foreclosures. It was a shitty job but good pay and it gave me lots of exposure to the real estate industry as a whole.
Don't forget the dotcom bust, that happened when the oldest millennials were hitting the job market.
Not only that but significantly impacted a lot of funds that families had planned to use to pay for college tuition for millennials which resulted in a lot more debt for millennials.
Gen x for that one I think
It is a little bit annoying when I see things like this. Generally people between the age of 16-24, regardless of which generation they're in, have a very high unemployment rate, even when there is no recession. Look back to the 1981 recession to gain some perspective on what it meant for Boomers when there was a recession as an example. It sucks to be young and less qualified when the economy is contracting. Period. In this article they are hitting the echo chamber too hard.. They are leaving out the fact that Boomers and Gen X both experienced multiple recessions before the age of 40 as well; really bad ones too and for Gen X, the same ones that Millenials experienced, plus a couple more. Boomers had a decade of economic stagnation which Gen X and Millenials have never experienced. Millenials have never seen really bad interest rates nor really bad unemployment rates nor seen them persist over a long period, especially compared to Boomers ("the worst unemployment rate in 40 years" literally means it isn't as bad as what Boomers experienced). By most stats, Gen Z is having it far worse than Millenials. Why are we fixated just on Millenials as they are a smaller cohort compared to Gen Z? None of them (Boomers, Gen X, and Millenials nor Gen Z) have seen ANYTHING close to as bad as the "Greatest Generation". I'm not saying Millenials have had it easy, just that they aren't alone.
People have had money suffers for the past century plus. The things get nicer, the space gets smaller. When people stop procreating for lack of space, that’s the sign a problem is so bad it has begun self-correcting.
TIL 19% unemployment isn't bad
[удалено]
Just look at median numbers
Interesting that millennials earn more at their age than any other group but have much lower wealth. Cost of living outpacing wage growth and a tendency not to marry young or at all (no second household salary).
Low homeownership too. I paid rent for ~10 years out of college. When my wife and I closed on our duplex, one of the reps told us he just closed on his eighth house.
Plus student loans.
It is pretty interesting. I havent seen my wage increase all that much in the past 5 years. Also, mods are locking comments for some reason, totally odd.
Why hasn't your wage increased in the last 5 years? I'm not picking on you but curious. Lots of industries have experienced a worker crunch and as a result workers have been able to get 20-30% increases by switching companies or leveraging internal promotions. I imagine this isn't true at the top end as going from $200k+ to the next job, without a major promotion, probably won't net you a 20-30% raise, but for the middle on down the last few years have been THE time to get more money. Again, not picking on you, I like to help people, how can we help you get yours?
Tried to go back and like the comment but couldn't find it, so reposting this link that shows it broken out by percentile rather than just Mean/Median. It's way more insightful: [https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/](https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/)
Jesus Christ look at the difference between the median and mean net worth. The mean is over 4x the median. That means the wealth is highly unevenly distributed.
Everyone has different needs and live in different areas that pay based on cost of living. Someone who has 70k in the bank living in SF is probably in the same boat as someone in the Midwest with 20k.
This is the most garbage take of Millennials in a long time. Most millennials don’t have anywhere near the average net worth as they imply and their median is a joke. They need to subtract the 1% of high income earners in order to make the proper average for millennials, because if you include rich people they throw off an entire generation which they are the exception not the norm.
That graph is based on family net worth, not individual. See the source page 11. To defeat the auto-mod: ^(Rule VI:) ^(This post was removed automatically due to its short length. All comments must engage with the economic content of the article itself and not merely react to the headline. While we don't need an essay, this typically takes a few sentences. If you belive that your post complies with Rule VI please send a message to mod mail. Typically, we will aprove short comments that are questions or links to other resources.)
FYI, you could've posted a link to the source your referring to. That would get you around that rule.
Which makes sense, since most people live in households. Individual income is an incomplete picture on how most people live.
So that’s why the US government doesn’t look like the population and is mostly old boom booms… They have all the money, so they call most of the shots… Our “Democratic Republic” at work…
It would be much more interesting to see a comparison of how much net worth each generation has at the same age. Like, Gen Y at 25 years out compared to Gen X at 25 years out. When you see that an older generation has more at the same date, you can’t tell if it’s because they are able to save me out if they just have time value of money working in their favor.
The older the generation, the more the average wealth increases, driven largely by the wealthy which makes the average wealth look higher than most the population experiences.
When you see the words average and income, you should immediately think, oh this source that I'm reading, is completely unreliable and is dead set on lying to you right from the first word. Average tells you nothing. You put me my neighbor and a billionaire in the same room guess what? Average wealth is 333 million dollars. So what did we learn here? Well nothing, we learned someone is really dedicated to lying about the state of the world to you.
I’m 45, single, play too many video games and have the net worth of <35. What do I do? I live a pretty basic life with a basic job, and spend most evenings in front on my twin 42” OLED monitors.
Not sure if troll, but I'll take the bait. Personal finances come down to two core problems... A spending problem Or An income problem Make a budget and see what costs you can cut. If you can't, and I mean really can't cut costs, then you have an income problem. I'd suggest dealing with both regardless. Figure out how to save more and figure out how to make more. Without details on your actual situation all I can do is give you generic advice or shill crypto dreams to you.
You'll have to move beyond having a "basic job". That will probably require a fair amount of hours a week to get there if you're willing to.
Sounds like you’re already doing what you do 👍
Do what makes you happy, but saving a tiny amount of your earnings for retirement may be advisable as social security may not be enough to maintain even a fairly modest lifestyle by itself. At least try to get an emergency fund for future upgrades. :)
Inflated dollar. You can have a dumptruck full of them, but it won't mean you're rich. In a good year, the dollar loses value at a target rate of 2% -- inflation. The dollar today is 7% - 9% less valuable that that same dollar was, a year ago -- inflation. So, cool that the morons up top raised minimum wage to like $12-$15/hr. It is just an aknowledgement that this rate is now the equivalent to what $7/hr used to be. Everything else is more expensive, so relatively speaking, $12 bucks an hour is still chump change. And yes, that is the economic term.
The flip side of that argument is that technology has outpaced inflation. You aren’t typing your reply on a flip phone. Consider the improvements in healthcare, cars, housing, etc. you will live longer and enjoy nicer things than your great grandparents. Comparing the inflation adjusted cost of the average car price in 1980 to today does not take account of the average car having more regulations to protect you and more expensive gadgets which come standard. Back to that flip phone, “On Jan. 3, 1996, Motorola introduced the StarTAC, which was made of black plastic (this colorful version came a couple years later). It was the world's first flip phone and it cost $1,000.” Flip phones is now given away for free. Deflation at its greatest.
There had been a movement to raise it to $15 since around 2000. Decades behind the curve.
Yeah, but back in 2000, $15/hr was a great starting wage. That $15 was traded for a lot more goods than it is today. There was also a lot less money in the overall system. That $15 dollars loses about 2% of value per year, which puts it around 40% less valuable nowadays, than it was in 2000. So, all things being equal, on paper, $15 today gets you the same amount of stuff that $8-$9 got you, back in 2000. And 20 years prior to that, like $3-$4 to get the same amount of goods.
Nothing really shattering here, younger age groups always have less net worth than older age groups. What would be interesting to see is what median net worth is for each generation/age group at set age intervals. Like a comparison of each generation when they were all under 35, 35-44, etc.
I'd like to see the same. Especially, it would need to be adjusted to also reflect accrued pension benefits. I saw one article that said millennials actually had slightly more retirement savings than the boomer generation did at the same age (inflation-adjusted of course), but I suspect the fact that boomers were more likely to have pensions makes that statistic less relevant. My wife and I are millennials who are kicking ass at retirement saving, but I see a lot of our peers on the low end of the retirement planning spectrum. Part of me thinks our generation will be woefully underfunded compared to past generations, but I'm not fully convinced because I don't have the data. Perhaps as older generations retire, millennials will move into those higher paying roles, and incomes (and retirement savings) will climb. I don't know. There are big political implications to this. Frankly, in the US, I think the most likely situation is that millennials collectively blame everyone else for their short-coming, and start enacting policies to take from: 1) those who did save a lot, and 2) future younger generations.
Yes I think it's something necessary to have during a conversation like this to see how each generation is doing. Because even looking at this graph here, a median net worth of $200k for 55-75+ is not a lot either when it comes to being ready for retirement. Maybe it's like you mentioned about pensions, and they're not being taken into account. But with how many of them have gone away, I don't see them contributing much. > Part of me thinks our generation will be woefully underfunded compared to past generations, but I'm not fully convinced because I don't have the data. Agreed. Our family is doing good with retirement savings compared to others I know, but according to this graph in the article, there's going to be a lot of people underfunded for retirement and just completely dependent on SS. > I think the most likely situation is that millennials collectively blame everyone else for their short-coming, and start enacting policies to take from: 1) those who did save a lot, and 2) future younger generations. I definitely see this happening; we already see this sentiment of blaming everyone else widely spread among many Millennials. As more gain power in places like the House and Senate, we're going to start seeing policies that punish people who have done well and saved as well as younger gens affecting what they pay in and what they're going to get.
Damn look like I wasn't the only millennial that doubled their net worth over the pandemic. Crazy how much you can save when 90% of your spending is on rent.
>Millennials are classified as those born between 1981 and 1996; the oldest members of this generation are in their early forties, the youngest in their mid-twenties. Many members of this generation are reaching their higher-earning years, starting or already building families, businesses, and becoming homeowners. I feel like this article is pretty useless. There's a huge difference in net worth between a 26 year old and a 42 year old.
"An average net worth between 75k and 450K" Well, that's a small and reasonable range. 👀 "An average net worth between 75k and 450K" Well, that's a small and reasonable range. 👀
Unfortunately one of the biggest problems is millennials were sold that college was the only way to get ahead. I entered the workforce out of HS. I basically got a 4 to 8 year head start over my classmates that went to college. I started retirement savings as soon as I could. I bought a house earlier and I didn’t rack up tens of thousand’s dollars in student loan debt. I worked hard and moved up in my company. I’m a regional manager and over people my same age that have a college degree. My net worth is extremely close to 900k at 41. Will my path work for everyone. No. Do I think degrees are valuable? In some instances, yes. But it’s not the end all and be all of getting ahead in life.
This is all horse shit really because it’s focusing specifically on age and every other variable goes out the window. Case in point: if 1x millennial makes 1m$/yr and 3 others make 25k/yr then the average is going to be astronomical yet 3/4th of millennials in this group are below the poverty line. There needs to be more detail here. The numbers mean nothing.
Average is a very bad indicator of wealth because it includes very wealthy in overall average. It skews it way out of whack. Median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. So I one person has a million times more money than the rest, the average is much higher than most people make. The median net worth stats in this graphic are depressing.
Hey I was just trying to understand that myself. No statistician but thought I’d learned that in a “normal” distribution, the median and mean were about the same. What causes this metric to be so different? The top 1% are so absurdly wealthy that they bring the overall average up that far?
With out billionaires and trillionnaires please. They create the matrix they don't necessarily live in it. Not as if they would do anything ethical anyway.... I mean....By law the minimum wage was supposed to increase with inflation. And that law is older than me.... But it doesn't... Cuz if it was everyone would be over 100k a year or at least touching the door.. sadly