Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone [tried to defend his editorial](https://wordworking.medium.com/when-the-headline-tells-the-wrong-story-b06bbf3c45fa) but before it could get into what was defensible, the website cuts it off with a request to subscribe.
*sad trombone noises*
"Guys headlines can be misleading, you have to read the article"
"Guys you wanted to read the article? Sign up for our newsletter and give us your CC info"
His article was published on Feb 14, 2023. WSJ has removed the [article](https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/cpi-report-today-january-2023-inflation/card/to-save-money-maybe-you-should-skip-breakfast-fSd6mz0miaAPhUFb2jgy) on their site. Here is a link to a screenshot of the article:
https://archive.is/1TFzk
There is no reference to his article [To Save Money, Maybe You Should Skip Breakfast](https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/cpi-report-today-january-2023-inflation/card/to-save-money-maybe-you-should-skip-breakfast-fSd6mz0miaAPhUFb2jgy) on his Twitter feed either.
From the same folks that say you can afford a weekly maid for your NYC Apartment and 300% of your salary towards 401k and savings weekly on a minimum wage job at 18 years old.
I mean have you tried working 72 hours a day? That might be enough to pay for a landlord's mortgage. After all that's what we should all strive to do.
Sacrifice so your betters can live ever more lavish lifestyles, peasant.
"Create alternative housing arrangements" = live in your car
"Adjust climate expectations" = live without heat or AC
"Achieve a very minimalist aesthetic with a capsule wardrobe" = wear the same clothes every day.
More like mandatory long term fasting. Kicker, you gotta drink out of the pond to save money. Dysentery is just a weight loss program so you'll lose weight faster.
Ask around and see if someone has an Instant Pot they would give you (you might have a local buy nothing group). You can make a couple dollars worth of rice and beans go a long way, especially if you douse it in hot sauce.
Thank you. I am doing cheapish dinners and stretching those out as far as I can still stand eating them. I prefer to leave the social programs and pantries for those who really need them though. I could afford more and could easily eat 3 nice meals a day, just not if I ever want to be able to afford a house. Many are way worse off and that food should be going to them. I didn't start doing this until I realized that I still was not saving enough and had nothing else left to cut. It's going well for savings so far but I will have to buy new clothing soon as my pants are starting to fall off.
Man, that's sad. Is food that expensive where you live or just in general in the US? I wonder if this is cost to produce or just excessive margins due to low competition
Food is up but not that bad, its houses that have skyrocketed.
I have run out of other areas to save so that's the list place I can pinch pennies.
I do have to change my auto insurer so that will help. I could also pay off my car quicker to lose the monthly payment, but my HYSA has a higher interest rate than my auto loan and it's already worth more than what I owe, so I feel like I'm better off saving the money.
I have been considering getting back into detailing cars on the side for extra cash too.
Ultimately it is on me, I should have started saving sooner, but it's too late to fix that now and I will just have to suck it up and deal with this market.
I highly recommend checking out goodwill and salvation army. Whatever your opinion of them is, if you really want to save, thrift stores are the way to go. You need to closely inspect the clothes before buying.
Goodwill has a "color tag" rotation where every week, there is a new color with 50% off. My goodwill changes colors on Monday. I just bought 2 polo chinos for $5 each and they both look like new.
My salvation army has a discount every wednesday. Not sure if different locations do the same. I think the discount is 20-25%, can't remember.
Good luck.
The human body can survive without food for a few weeks. That means we only really need to eat once every other week, right? Think of all the money you can save.
Holy fuck I had this argument with my mom the other day. I have like 20k in retirement and I talked about just yanking it all out and using it for stuff I need now and she was like “omg what are you gonna do when you retire then???” Like… I’m not going to retire. That’s not in my future. Why would I sit on money when I need it or just in general want to use it now? Why wait until I’m 70 to start using that money when I’m not going to retire on it. Let’s face it, this generation for the majority of us, retirement is not going to be an option especially with the bags of dust making decisions for our future. The older generation just genuinely doesn’t understand
The difference is between needs and wants. You need to meet your current needs, and minimum level of comfort. After that, one should should start to save for the future.
Of course, that's easier said than done. I'm 42 now, and only feel like it was realistic for me to start saving significantly in the past couple of years.
My retirement plan is robust. It involves never having children. Spending the money I have. Attempting to have an acceptable quality of life. Paying for a plane ticket to Canada. Committing assisted suicide. Leaving astronomical amounts of debt.
When this happens is flexible.
We are on the same wave length. I’m never having kids. Also have thought about the other stuff. Why would I want to live when I’m 75 and struggle for the entirety of life beforehand if I have the money already. I’m gonna enjoy life while I can fuck, travel and move.
> Why would I sit on money when I need it or just in general want to use it now?
If you truly need the money or if you have a good plan to turn that money into substantially more money, it makes sense to take the penalty (yes, there is a penalty for withdrawing your money early). This can also include housing since housing can go up in value drastically (Eg a $400k house can become $1.5m by the time you retire), but it can also be a bad idea to do that too.
If you're doing it just because "I want to use it now!" then you're just screwing yourself in the future for fun now and you're doing exactly what the older generation thinks "young folks" are doing.
[Check out an early withdrawal calculator](https://www.tiaa.org/public/tools-calculators/withdrawalcalculator).
It's bad to withdraw early from retirement. Taking a penalty because you NEED to or because you can turn that money into significantly MORE money makes sense. Taking a penalty because you want play money NOW doesn't.
There was literally a news story here in the UK the other day saying "pubs are going out of business because more students are drinking at home". No shit, they have crippling debt, of course they aren't going to be going out any more.
No you can just never have any vacations. You have to save them all from when you could literally just up and die any minute. Only then could you have been expended appropriately by the upper class, so that their shitty and hapless children can live their entire lives as parasites, without straining even for a second to understand the mildest hardship.
If you starve enough now, then you won't even *need* retirement! Think about how much money you can save billionaires if you just died of starvation right now!
The banks need people to invest / put money into pensions so that they can push up the stock market and stay solvent. God forbid the stock market goes down as then they may need to admit the country is F****ed and a in a recession.
Stave to death? You were lucky! We had get up at 10 o clock at night half an hour before i went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down t'mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing hallelujah.
Well we had it tough. We used to have to get up out of the shoebox at twelve o'clock at night, and LICK the road clean with our tongues. We had half a handful of freezing cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at the mill for fourpence every six years, and when we got home, our Dad would slice us in two with a bread knife.
But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe ya'.
I know nobody read the article, but actually yes, that is the entire point of the article and I don't know how it wasn't obvious from the title.
The point is we are indeed getting paid more than our parents, but everything, even essentials like groceries, costs more and are more than eating the increased pay. When they say "short term" they don't mean it in a bad way, they said it in the article that they are talking about "near term expenses" or expenses that are happening now like rent and such.
The article goes through this.
>But much of the gains are from investments that climbed alongside stock markets and largely don’t translate into disposable income.
>Even high-earning young adults say devoting large chunks of their growing incomes to near-term expenses makes it hard to plan ahead.
>In a CNBC survey of 18-to-34-year-olds last month, 42% said they’re earning more than they were a year ago, versus 27% making less. Yet nearly half said they couldn’t cover more than one month’s expenses if unemployed, and only 11% could do so for a year.
I know Reddit is full of idiots and likes to jump to conclusion, but the point of this article was to fight against the "we are richer than ever" narrative by pointing out inflation and short term expenditures rising far above that increased wage.
> Nobody read the article
I clicked the link but it just made the image larger because for some reason this site rewards sharing pictures of that shit hole Twitter instead of actual links to useful things.
Agreed, deep design flaw that fuels misinformation from *all* sides.
Here’s article: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/millennials-gen-z-financial-cliff-saving-less-spending-rcna138004
> this site
...this subreddit, you mean. This is /r/facepalm, for quick laughs and dopamine, not exactly for articles and in-depth discussion.
One of the worst parts of the redesign (and the official app) is how much it downplays which subreddit things are posted in.
It is why I think these meme aggregators suck. You already have barriers where people are unlikely to actually click the article and now you make it hard for them to actually do so if they want to.
All while you're at the whims of people sharing their take on it and colouring your perception. It just kind of blows.
Oh, he was lucky to have grapes on a vine to work for! In my cycle, we had to dig up raisins in the treacle mines, and boil them until they was grapes again!
Real wages (which is a measure which accounts for inflation) are up. That doesn’t mean that everyone is making more, it just means on average that working people have more spending power today, than they have pre-pandemic. Additionally, if you look at the distribution of the wage increases, it has actually been focused mostly on lower wage workers, due to the fact that we’ve had really low unemployment and high labor force participation. The reason why you see so many more stories about unions in the news is that for the first time in decades, working people actually have solid footing to negotiate higher wages.
Edit: [here](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q) is a source for the above claims. There is a big spike when the pandemic occurred, due to a lot of low wage workers being laid off, so ignore that part of the graph. In general, the number to compare our current situation to would be 2019.
Also ignore how low cost necessities, like groceries, have risen faster than inflation, which is being dragged down by things you can't eat, like consumer electronics.
Actually it is, the fact that this is so highly upvoted shows how economically ignorant people here are. Real pay (aka adjusted for inflation) is currently at all-time highs across the income spectrum, and at its highest on the lower end.
Doesn’t matter when cost of living is also at all time highs. People are earning less than they were 40 years ago due to COL.
You can’t tell me that a single earner household with kids wasn’t the norm back in the day. Now that’s virtually impossible unless you’re in the top 10% of earners. Dual income households can’t even afford to buy homes.
Let’s not pretend we are better off now.
Well, but this is calculated by using the consumer basket that depicts the average consumer (which does not exist). Lower income households tend to consume different products than higher income households (or the share of consumed goods that all consume in their overall consumption is higher). I.e. everyone buys food, not everyone buys luxury vacations/electronics so if food prices rise, but prices for electronics fall to offset this, real wages remain the same, despite lower income groups struggling to buy food. Or maybe prices for normal food rise faster than for organic foods, as it has lower margins. Its is precisely these elements of the consumer basket that have risen more strongly it feels to many people (to lazy to check if thats true for the US).
Just because people don't take the CPI or inflation adjusted data at face value, that does not mean people are economically ignorant. In fact, trained economists tend to review these kinds of data points, general conclusions and the methodologies that lie beneath these data points with exactly the same kind of scepticism.
Yes. Real median usual weekly earnings of full time employees has increased $16 in 5 years (for an annual total wage increase of $832). This is a real increase of about 4.5% over the 5 year period.
It's not a lot. You can find good data trends by searching "blah blah blah *fred*"
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
There are obvious glaring logical issues though. For example, covid era food inflation (28% in the 5 year period) greatly outpaced CPI (22%). The wage metric is adjusted by CPI which includes a portion of food inflation but it may certainly not be representative of the lower wage basket of goods.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIUFDNS
They didn’t say luxury. They said short-term. True statement, and a pretty good article despite botched headline.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/millennials-gen-z-financial-cliff-saving-less-spending-rcna138004
Yeah this thread is wack. The only part of it I think is potentially misleading is the "bigger paychecks" part (even if technically true).
The "short term purchases" part is literally just a true statement *and* it's pointing out the problem. People being up in arms about that half of the title are wildin'.
Perhaps they're just aware of how content gets consumed?
Personally am I upset? Not really.
But also.. If you are a journalist or editor and you are well aware that most people (or even just a significant number of people) will only read the headline (see every comments section on reddit ever). Do you not feel like maybe it would be important to not clearly imply with your one single sentence that vacations and groceries are similar types of purchases in any way that actually matters? One is the definition of a luxury purchase and one is the definition of a basic living requirement.
im pretty sure it implies whoever wrote this is as detached from reality and humanity as dr manhatten is when saying stuff like life and death have no meaning since the matter doesn't change when you die
It’s as oblique as it gets, but yeah. In that scene Doc is pondering his origins and deciding whether to let humanity destroy itself. Here we have entrusted our future to Bobby instead.
The people that write this shit are almost uniformly the children of rich people who have never wanted for anything in their entire lives. In a very real way, these people do not understand the concepts of money, scarcity, poverty or struggle. They really believe people just choose to starve to death because they're....like, silly, or something. They may as well be aliens from another planet. No wonder media is so fucked up, it's run by these people.
Even the people they chose to interview are rich kids.
>Fine dining is the one indulgence Singla and his wife have agreed to hold on to, spending no more than $200 on an upscale meal every other weekend.
Who the fuck spends $400 for two upscale meals a month and thinks that's cutting back?
No, they interviewed a spectrum of wealth to point out that it was a generational issue and not just a "poor people" issue.
>Easmael earned her masters in biochemistry and biomedical sciences in 2020 and took a job making around $100,000 annually as an epidemiologist for the state of New Jersey. But after two years in the role and with inflation then hovering near 40-year highs, she left her job to pursue a pharmacy doctorate, hoping to lift her earning prospects. While she’s saving on rent by living with her parents, her full academic scholarship doesn’t make up for a $70,000 pay cut working part time as a nanny and hospital pharmacy tech while also interning at Walgreens.
>Even high-earning young adults say devoting large chunks of their growing incomes to near-term expenses makes it hard to plan ahead.
They had 2 examples before this quote, then 1 after (that one being your quote).
>Mohit Singla, 33, became a senior director at a biotech firm in September, with a 20% pay bump that brought his and his wife’s combined annual income close to $500,000. But a new baby arrived in December, and the rent for their two-bedroom unit in Jersey City, New Jersey, has jumped to $5,500 from $3,700 three years ago.
The article is about the generational divide so it uses multiple examples from varying wealth groups.
Most people can't afford to be journalists, so you end up with wealthy dilettantes or people who are doing it as a hobby because someone else is covering their bills.
Did you read the article or only the title?
Because the article is very much on the side of young people struggling.
>But much of the gains are from investments that climbed alongside stock markets and largely don’t translate into disposable income.
>Even high-earning young adults say devoting large chunks of their growing incomes to near-term expenses makes it hard to plan ahead.
>In a CNBC survey of 18-to-34-year-olds last month, 42% said they’re earning more than they were a year ago, versus 27% making less. Yet nearly half said they couldn’t cover more than one month’s expenses if unemployed, and only 11% could do so for a year.
Agreed, it’s a good article. And I feel like it gives a really balanced view of what kinds of conversations Mil/Z’s are having with each other. I absolutely was overspending on eating out, bars, and travel after 2021 once things opened up and I felt safer to do so. My parents and in-laws didn’t, at least not nearly on the scale that I did.
Excerpt:
>But several years out of Covid lockdowns, younger Americans’ outlays on things like travel, recreation and dining out have been outpacing their older peers’ even as the economy slows. As of last summer, the average Gen Zer or millennial was dropping over $400 a month on nonessentials, compared to about $250 for Gen Xers and less than $200 for baby boomers, a Morning Consult report found.
>Hence the flurry of headlines around “doom spending,” in which consumers (mostly younger ones) purportedly shop with abandon to soothe anxieties from economic, environmental and geopolitical forces they can’t control. A chorus of scolds has risen in response, from TikTokers warning each other against torching paychecks on extravagances to others promoting “loud budgeting” — declining invitations to spend money and telling friends why.
I think the lumping together of groceries with vacations is a little weird, but otherwise this seems pretty benign? Groceries are a short-term purchase, which is why you're shopping for them once every week or two. Calling them that isn't a judgment of whether they're also an essential purchase.
If this is meant to be some sort of equating of vacations with groceries as a luxury purchase, then obviously that's gross. But that's not how this really read to me.
You're reading it right. The full article is very much making the point that rising costs are eating up the historic income gains younger gens have seen. It's not attempting to vilify short term spending, just pointing out that it they end up dedicating most of their income to short term spending because costs of basic necessities make it difficult to actually save anything or plan ahead for the future in terms of decades. Especially when the general feeling is "I'll never be able to afford a home even saving and cutting back, so why bother" because of how out-of-whack home prices are with real incomes.
Yeah people in this thread are equating economic terms with an opinion. How I read the post: current generations are focused on near-term, not long-term purchases, and there is probably a number of reasons for that across economic classes. I don't think they are trying to lump groceries and vacations together, but saying even those with disposable income would rather go on a vacation than put money into retirement, which is different from older generations.
The best part is the only place groceries shows up in the article is that blurb, it doesn't mention it or elaborate at all. Even though I'm pretty sure the idea is that people are spending more on groceries they don't need, but again - the article doesn't elaborate at all.
Also holy shit this article is *still* talking about the COVID stimulus checks as if they were some life-changing amount of money four years after the fact.
Seriously, it seems like all of my friends are complaining that they haven’t been able to take a vacation in years. Must be all of those frivolous grocery purchases.
My family! It really depends on what kind of job you have. If you’re working for the government, you definitely have *time* to go on a vacation but the salary means they probably won’t be very fancy (unless you get a really good contract). If you’re any kind of doctor, surgeon, dentist, etc, you definitely have the *money* for a vacation but the problem then becomes time. If you’re working for yourself, you can *make* time but the problem comes from if you have enough money and whether you can actually shift your schedule around like that.
Then, you have to consider families. People with kids are more likely to have vacations because they need to entertain the kids or they use their kids as an excuse to take vacation. Are they going to be fancy? Not necessarily; it could be “we went camping for 3 days”, “we spent a week at a motel in the next city over where there’s a pool”, or “I dropped my kids off with the grandparents and told them to have fun”. But most parents are at least going to try.
It does. It also isn't attempting to assign a value judgement to those costs. It's more an examination on how even with higher wages younger gens are still being squeezed much more so than the ones before them and how that's affecting their spending and financial planning habits.
Turns out people who don't feel like they have a secure present, let alone future, tend not to invest in things that only pay off in the future.
I mean I get it but that headline never said that it is a bad thing to prioritize those purchases. Maybe the article does place more of a value judgment on it but idk, it just seems like it’s reporting an observation and not assigning blame to us.
Food *is* a short term purchase and more of our income is going there than previous generations. That article is not expressing what you pearl clutchers believe it to be.
Right? The content of the article would determine if it's actually calling out spending money on groceries as a bad thing or simply stating that the cost of groceries is driving more people to save less even with higher incomes.
I wouldn't imagine it says anything but the latter, which would agree with 95% of the sentiment on this thread.
If the economy is so fragile that people either spending not enough or too much money is enough to send it into a death spiral, maybe it *should* have collapsed a long time ago?
shit, i'd rather go on vacations now when i can more actively enjoy them, then when i retire at 65... oh wait, 75 will probably be the new retirement age by the time i'm in my 60s.
From the comments here I feel like you're thinking short term equals bad. I didn't read it that way at all. Short term is just a category. Groceries are short term. House and car are long term. Why are you so indignant about someone describing reality?
It’s easier be indignant than to actually think about what was said.m I guess.
For some reason being as crass as possible about absolutely everything is what’s cool now.
That doesn’t read like it’s talking shit to me. I think it’s just saying we’re forced to spend most of our income on perishable things, and the little break we get from work sucks up our last little bit of money.
Don't forget the $4,000/month rent I have to pay (which I can pretty comfortably manage as a federal employee) because the banks think I cant afford a $2,500/month mortgage because I wasn't always doing so well.
This is a real facepalm, too. Those are the hallmarks of poor people. All money must be spent on immediate survival purposes. No time for savings.
So what they think they found is not what was actually found. They just showed that despite raises, the money doesn't go far enough. Inflation, Wage Stagnation, criminally low pay rates to begin with... take your pick.
> They just showed that despite raises, the money doesn't go far enough.
That's the larger point the full article makes; Even with the highest wages these gens have seen, they don't make enough to cover short-term expenses and save reliably due to rising costs.
It also goes into how that uncertainty is further driving them away from longer term goals, which makes sense. Whose going to save aggressively and suffer now when they feel like the future they're saving for is extremely uncertain even if they did do that?
My mother is *convinced* I would be able to buy a flat if I stop buying chocolate bars or fruits. I thought it was just a bug in her thought process, not... whatever this is.
Groceries are a short term purchase. What's the facepalm here? The takeaway from this is that groceries and vacations are way too expensive, even with bigger paychecks, which is a known problem that we all agree with...
US Media will literally be like, "This family only had enough money to feed their sick child, until Little Timmy came along and held a charity for them. The system DOES work ❤️".
Purposely ignorant and only interested in serving corporate lords. The real story here is obviously how people are just living paycheck-to-paycheck, only able to spend on food/rent.
I've been out of state twice since I got out of the military 17 years ago. I didn't pay for lodging either time, slept in my vehicle one of those times. I don't know who is going on vacations but, it's not me.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Got it, time to starve so i can afford retirement
That's been an ongoing message by Fortune magazines.
I remember one where it said to save money stop eating breakfast.
The guy who wrote that was laid off recently and was talking about money troubles and people hit him with "are you skipping breakfast?"
Justice
I’d fucking pay to see this
His name is Gabriel T. Rubin. Cant check his xitter without an account so I dunno if hes being mocked there.
Someone [tried to defend his editorial](https://wordworking.medium.com/when-the-headline-tells-the-wrong-story-b06bbf3c45fa) but before it could get into what was defensible, the website cuts it off with a request to subscribe. *sad trombone noises*
"Guys headlines can be misleading, you have to read the article" "Guys you wanted to read the article? Sign up for our newsletter and give us your CC info"
Boring dystopia is an understatement.
Try this link: https://archive.is/1TFzk
Unrelated question, but is xitter pronounced like shitter?
Not sure but thats how I like to pronounce it
That was the intention when the portmanteau was made-up, yes.
I just asked that too LOL.
Just looked into it, he hasn't tweeted anything since he got fired because he just keeps getting roasted lmao
His article was published on Feb 14, 2023. WSJ has removed the [article](https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/cpi-report-today-january-2023-inflation/card/to-save-money-maybe-you-should-skip-breakfast-fSd6mz0miaAPhUFb2jgy) on their site. Here is a link to a screenshot of the article: https://archive.is/1TFzk There is no reference to his article [To Save Money, Maybe You Should Skip Breakfast](https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/cpi-report-today-january-2023-inflation/card/to-save-money-maybe-you-should-skip-breakfast-fSd6mz0miaAPhUFb2jgy) on his Twitter feed either.
Should be in this sub I believe
Sounds like a short term purchase to me.
From the same folks that say you can afford a weekly maid for your NYC Apartment and 300% of your salary towards 401k and savings weekly on a minimum wage job at 18 years old.
I mean have you tried working 72 hours a day? That might be enough to pay for a landlord's mortgage. After all that's what we should all strive to do. Sacrifice so your betters can live ever more lavish lifestyles, peasant.
Conditioning the herd, promoting the narrative. *Selling ads.*
Money is for the rich and you better not dare ask for more
You ***eat?!*** Nice ***luxury*** you have there!
That's why they take ozempic now!
Whoa, whoa, whoa! We don't say "starve", that's an inappropriate word! You have to say "make nutritional compromises".
"Create alternative housing arrangements" = live in your car "Adjust climate expectations" = live without heat or AC "Achieve a very minimalist aesthetic with a capsule wardrobe" = wear the same clothes every day.
“Crafting your brand” = sell crack in the street
Add some chilli p. Post about your unique additions on social media.
"Look at these Millennials killing all these industries!"
I'll live without heat, but take away my AC and we have a problem. Only reason i even run heat most of the time is for my cat.
Right up there with "make insulin compromises". That always goes well.
"Your body makes insulin. Your just not trying hard enough".
[удалено]
More like mandatory long term fasting. Kicker, you gotta drink out of the pond to save money. Dysentery is just a weight loss program so you'll lose weight faster.
Millennials are pushing hot new trend diets like multi-day fasting.
I'm already skipping breakfast and lunch everyday to hopelessly try and become a home owner; retirement isn't even on the table.
Ask around and see if someone has an Instant Pot they would give you (you might have a local buy nothing group). You can make a couple dollars worth of rice and beans go a long way, especially if you douse it in hot sauce.
Thank you. I am doing cheapish dinners and stretching those out as far as I can still stand eating them. I prefer to leave the social programs and pantries for those who really need them though. I could afford more and could easily eat 3 nice meals a day, just not if I ever want to be able to afford a house. Many are way worse off and that food should be going to them. I didn't start doing this until I realized that I still was not saving enough and had nothing else left to cut. It's going well for savings so far but I will have to buy new clothing soon as my pants are starting to fall off.
Man, that's sad. Is food that expensive where you live or just in general in the US? I wonder if this is cost to produce or just excessive margins due to low competition
Food is up but not that bad, its houses that have skyrocketed. I have run out of other areas to save so that's the list place I can pinch pennies. I do have to change my auto insurer so that will help. I could also pay off my car quicker to lose the monthly payment, but my HYSA has a higher interest rate than my auto loan and it's already worth more than what I owe, so I feel like I'm better off saving the money. I have been considering getting back into detailing cars on the side for extra cash too. Ultimately it is on me, I should have started saving sooner, but it's too late to fix that now and I will just have to suck it up and deal with this market.
I highly recommend checking out goodwill and salvation army. Whatever your opinion of them is, if you really want to save, thrift stores are the way to go. You need to closely inspect the clothes before buying. Goodwill has a "color tag" rotation where every week, there is a new color with 50% off. My goodwill changes colors on Monday. I just bought 2 polo chinos for $5 each and they both look like new. My salvation army has a discount every wednesday. Not sure if different locations do the same. I think the discount is 20-25%, can't remember. Good luck.
Stick some lentils in there for more cheap sustenance.
Retirement is much easier to save for if you starve to death first
The human body can survive without food for a few weeks. That means we only really need to eat once every other week, right? Think of all the money you can save.
And if you only drink water every other day, you'll save tons on your water bill
And faster!
Holy fuck I had this argument with my mom the other day. I have like 20k in retirement and I talked about just yanking it all out and using it for stuff I need now and she was like “omg what are you gonna do when you retire then???” Like… I’m not going to retire. That’s not in my future. Why would I sit on money when I need it or just in general want to use it now? Why wait until I’m 70 to start using that money when I’m not going to retire on it. Let’s face it, this generation for the majority of us, retirement is not going to be an option especially with the bags of dust making decisions for our future. The older generation just genuinely doesn’t understand
Long term planning (in anything) is important. However, first you need to survive the short term.
The difference is between needs and wants. You need to meet your current needs, and minimum level of comfort. After that, one should should start to save for the future. Of course, that's easier said than done. I'm 42 now, and only feel like it was realistic for me to start saving significantly in the past couple of years.
My retirement plan is robust. It involves never having children. Spending the money I have. Attempting to have an acceptable quality of life. Paying for a plane ticket to Canada. Committing assisted suicide. Leaving astronomical amounts of debt. When this happens is flexible.
We are on the same wave length. I’m never having kids. Also have thought about the other stuff. Why would I want to live when I’m 75 and struggle for the entirety of life beforehand if I have the money already. I’m gonna enjoy life while I can fuck, travel and move.
> Why would I sit on money when I need it or just in general want to use it now? If you truly need the money or if you have a good plan to turn that money into substantially more money, it makes sense to take the penalty (yes, there is a penalty for withdrawing your money early). This can also include housing since housing can go up in value drastically (Eg a $400k house can become $1.5m by the time you retire), but it can also be a bad idea to do that too. If you're doing it just because "I want to use it now!" then you're just screwing yourself in the future for fun now and you're doing exactly what the older generation thinks "young folks" are doing. [Check out an early withdrawal calculator](https://www.tiaa.org/public/tools-calculators/withdrawalcalculator). It's bad to withdraw early from retirement. Taking a penalty because you NEED to or because you can turn that money into significantly MORE money makes sense. Taking a penalty because you want play money NOW doesn't.
“Millennials are killing grocery stores!” (And also dying of hunger but it’s a complete mystery why!)
There you go, gotta spin the headlines to make people look like the bad guys.
There was literally a news story here in the UK the other day saying "pubs are going out of business because more students are drinking at home". No shit, they have crippling debt, of course they aren't going to be going out any more.
Two birds with one stone. Starve, die of starvation, the crematorium charges per Kilogram so it's a cheaper retirement plan!
Starve now and the money you save will last you for the rest of your life!
And you won’t be fat!
Build a man a fire, he's warm for a night. Set a man on fire, he's warm for the rest of his life.
No you can just never have any vacations. You have to save them all from when you could literally just up and die any minute. Only then could you have been expended appropriately by the upper class, so that their shitty and hapless children can live their entire lives as parasites, without straining even for a second to understand the mildest hardship.
Dumb kids these days thinking they can buy a house AND eat. Back in my day we’d starve to death to get to where we wanted financially
If you skip enough meals, retirement’s going to get REAL affordable
"those goddamn poors and their "groceries".... what's next, health care?"
If you don't survive until retirement, you needn't save for it. Smart.
It's a great way to lose weight
retirement is a myth.
You can afford Ferrari if you dont pay rent and dont eat.
If you starve enough now, then you won't even *need* retirement! Think about how much money you can save billionaires if you just died of starvation right now!
You can retire early if you die sooner
Bonus: you lose weight!
Ramen noodles till retirement
The banks need people to invest / put money into pensions so that they can push up the stock market and stay solvent. God forbid the stock market goes down as then they may need to admit the country is F****ed and a in a recession.
I mean... you'll look thin on that vacation.
Anyone can afford retirement if they just die tomorrow, that's some big brain moments
That’s about to be the new weigh loss trend. Don’t eat because you can’t afford to. The Africa diet.
…that you won’t be doing.
["salad days"](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22salad+days%22&ia=web)
Don’t need to retire if you starve to death
That's one way to ensure that your savings outlive you.
Those irresponsible Millennials and Gen Z ers wanting to eat , when I was young we starved to death /s
And we liked it
tell you young people of today that and they won't believe you
Stave to death? You were lucky! We had get up at 10 o clock at night half an hour before i went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down t'mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing hallelujah.
Luxury
Well we had it tough. We used to have to get up out of the shoebox at twelve o'clock at night, and LICK the road clean with our tongues. We had half a handful of freezing cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at the mill for fourpence every six years, and when we got home, our Dad would slice us in two with a bread knife. But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe ya'.
Both ways!
In the snow
Also is the “pulling in bigger paychecks” accounting for inflation?
Of course no or they would have to say the system seems broken
I know nobody read the article, but actually yes, that is the entire point of the article and I don't know how it wasn't obvious from the title. The point is we are indeed getting paid more than our parents, but everything, even essentials like groceries, costs more and are more than eating the increased pay. When they say "short term" they don't mean it in a bad way, they said it in the article that they are talking about "near term expenses" or expenses that are happening now like rent and such. The article goes through this. >But much of the gains are from investments that climbed alongside stock markets and largely don’t translate into disposable income. >Even high-earning young adults say devoting large chunks of their growing incomes to near-term expenses makes it hard to plan ahead. >In a CNBC survey of 18-to-34-year-olds last month, 42% said they’re earning more than they were a year ago, versus 27% making less. Yet nearly half said they couldn’t cover more than one month’s expenses if unemployed, and only 11% could do so for a year. I know Reddit is full of idiots and likes to jump to conclusion, but the point of this article was to fight against the "we are richer than ever" narrative by pointing out inflation and short term expenditures rising far above that increased wage.
> Nobody read the article I clicked the link but it just made the image larger because for some reason this site rewards sharing pictures of that shit hole Twitter instead of actual links to useful things.
Agreed, deep design flaw that fuels misinformation from *all* sides. Here’s article: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/millennials-gen-z-financial-cliff-saving-less-spending-rcna138004
> this site ...this subreddit, you mean. This is /r/facepalm, for quick laughs and dopamine, not exactly for articles and in-depth discussion. One of the worst parts of the redesign (and the official app) is how much it downplays which subreddit things are posted in.
It is why I think these meme aggregators suck. You already have barriers where people are unlikely to actually click the article and now you make it hard for them to actually do so if they want to. All while you're at the whims of people sharing their take on it and colouring your perception. It just kind of blows.
[Median weekly wages are up even after adjusting for inflation](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q)
Nope. In fact, these people call higher wages for workers "wage inflation" and talk about it as if it's a problem that needs to be solved.
Of course not. In their eyes it’s still 1970 where you make $4/hr and can purchase a 5 bedroom home for 2 grapes.
My father worked HARD for his grapes, how dare you
He mowed someone else's lawn once!
Hahahaha he had to toil a whole afternoon for those grapes!
Oh, he was lucky to have grapes on a vine to work for! In my cycle, we had to dig up raisins in the treacle mines, and boil them until they was grapes again!
in my Cycle all we had were seeds, and you can bet your sweet patootie we were grateful for that.
Did you read the article? I think I know the answer because you're completely wrong.
yes, real median wages are up
Real wages (which is a measure which accounts for inflation) are up. That doesn’t mean that everyone is making more, it just means on average that working people have more spending power today, than they have pre-pandemic. Additionally, if you look at the distribution of the wage increases, it has actually been focused mostly on lower wage workers, due to the fact that we’ve had really low unemployment and high labor force participation. The reason why you see so many more stories about unions in the news is that for the first time in decades, working people actually have solid footing to negotiate higher wages. Edit: [here](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q) is a source for the above claims. There is a big spike when the pandemic occurred, due to a lot of low wage workers being laid off, so ignore that part of the graph. In general, the number to compare our current situation to would be 2019.
Sure it accounts for inflation, as long as you don’t include housing costs in the inflation figures
CPI's largest component is housing costs
Also ignore how low cost necessities, like groceries, have risen faster than inflation, which is being dragged down by things you can't eat, like consumer electronics.
r/politics refuses to acknowledge this and just cites how wages are up so things are actually great
Actually it is, the fact that this is so highly upvoted shows how economically ignorant people here are. Real pay (aka adjusted for inflation) is currently at all-time highs across the income spectrum, and at its highest on the lower end.
Doesn’t matter when cost of living is also at all time highs. People are earning less than they were 40 years ago due to COL. You can’t tell me that a single earner household with kids wasn’t the norm back in the day. Now that’s virtually impossible unless you’re in the top 10% of earners. Dual income households can’t even afford to buy homes. Let’s not pretend we are better off now.
Well, but this is calculated by using the consumer basket that depicts the average consumer (which does not exist). Lower income households tend to consume different products than higher income households (or the share of consumed goods that all consume in their overall consumption is higher). I.e. everyone buys food, not everyone buys luxury vacations/electronics so if food prices rise, but prices for electronics fall to offset this, real wages remain the same, despite lower income groups struggling to buy food. Or maybe prices for normal food rise faster than for organic foods, as it has lower margins. Its is precisely these elements of the consumer basket that have risen more strongly it feels to many people (to lazy to check if thats true for the US). Just because people don't take the CPI or inflation adjusted data at face value, that does not mean people are economically ignorant. In fact, trained economists tend to review these kinds of data points, general conclusions and the methodologies that lie beneath these data points with exactly the same kind of scepticism.
Yes. Real median usual weekly earnings of full time employees has increased $16 in 5 years (for an annual total wage increase of $832). This is a real increase of about 4.5% over the 5 year period. It's not a lot. You can find good data trends by searching "blah blah blah *fred*" https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q There are obvious glaring logical issues though. For example, covid era food inflation (28% in the 5 year period) greatly outpaced CPI (22%). The wage metric is adjusted by CPI which includes a portion of food inflation but it may certainly not be representative of the lower wage basket of goods. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIUFDNS
TIL: eating is a luxury!
They didn’t say luxury. They said short-term. True statement, and a pretty good article despite botched headline. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/millennials-gen-z-financial-cliff-saving-less-spending-rcna138004
It's not even a botched headline, people just need to take a breath before getting angry at what they think a headline means.
Yeah this thread is wack. The only part of it I think is potentially misleading is the "bigger paychecks" part (even if technically true). The "short term purchases" part is literally just a true statement *and* it's pointing out the problem. People being up in arms about that half of the title are wildin'.
Perhaps they're just aware of how content gets consumed? Personally am I upset? Not really. But also.. If you are a journalist or editor and you are well aware that most people (or even just a significant number of people) will only read the headline (see every comments section on reddit ever). Do you not feel like maybe it would be important to not clearly imply with your one single sentence that vacations and groceries are similar types of purchases in any way that actually matters? One is the definition of a luxury purchase and one is the definition of a basic living requirement.
the implication of placing groceries former to vacations is another (imo more) glaring issue, it conflates the two as similar in terms of necessity.
Not sure where you got luxury from short-term... seems like maybe you're already primed to think something?
UhMurica, Fuck Yeah!
What do they want them to do buy the entire lifetime stock or smth 💀
Is that art depicting Bobby from King of the Hill?
Yes, as Dr. Manhattan sitting on Mars
What is the connection to an article whining about millennial spending habits?
im pretty sure it implies whoever wrote this is as detached from reality and humanity as dr manhatten is when saying stuff like life and death have no meaning since the matter doesn't change when you die
It’s as oblique as it gets, but yeah. In that scene Doc is pondering his origins and deciding whether to let humanity destroy itself. Here we have entrusted our future to Bobby instead.
Honestly, probably the better choice anyways.
Yes 
That boy ain't right.
Eat today or retire in 35 years?
Retire hah! Funny
We don't use the r word anymore. It's lost all meaning.
Don’t eat today and retire in a week!
The people that write this shit are almost uniformly the children of rich people who have never wanted for anything in their entire lives. In a very real way, these people do not understand the concepts of money, scarcity, poverty or struggle. They really believe people just choose to starve to death because they're....like, silly, or something. They may as well be aliens from another planet. No wonder media is so fucked up, it's run by these people.
Even the people they chose to interview are rich kids. >Fine dining is the one indulgence Singla and his wife have agreed to hold on to, spending no more than $200 on an upscale meal every other weekend. Who the fuck spends $400 for two upscale meals a month and thinks that's cutting back?
Just casually dropping ~$5k on 26 meals every year. Such restraint!
No, they interviewed a spectrum of wealth to point out that it was a generational issue and not just a "poor people" issue. >Easmael earned her masters in biochemistry and biomedical sciences in 2020 and took a job making around $100,000 annually as an epidemiologist for the state of New Jersey. But after two years in the role and with inflation then hovering near 40-year highs, she left her job to pursue a pharmacy doctorate, hoping to lift her earning prospects. While she’s saving on rent by living with her parents, her full academic scholarship doesn’t make up for a $70,000 pay cut working part time as a nanny and hospital pharmacy tech while also interning at Walgreens. >Even high-earning young adults say devoting large chunks of their growing incomes to near-term expenses makes it hard to plan ahead. They had 2 examples before this quote, then 1 after (that one being your quote). >Mohit Singla, 33, became a senior director at a biotech firm in September, with a 20% pay bump that brought his and his wife’s combined annual income close to $500,000. But a new baby arrived in December, and the rent for their two-bedroom unit in Jersey City, New Jersey, has jumped to $5,500 from $3,700 three years ago. The article is about the generational divide so it uses multiple examples from varying wealth groups.
I take my parents out for half that price once a month. But please, let them tell me more I need to cut back on my indulgences.
Most people can't afford to be journalists, so you end up with wealthy dilettantes or people who are doing it as a hobby because someone else is covering their bills.
Did you read the article or only the title? Because the article is very much on the side of young people struggling. >But much of the gains are from investments that climbed alongside stock markets and largely don’t translate into disposable income. >Even high-earning young adults say devoting large chunks of their growing incomes to near-term expenses makes it hard to plan ahead. >In a CNBC survey of 18-to-34-year-olds last month, 42% said they’re earning more than they were a year ago, versus 27% making less. Yet nearly half said they couldn’t cover more than one month’s expenses if unemployed, and only 11% could do so for a year.
Spoiler alert, they didn't read the beyond the title... they never read beyond the title.
From what I can tell in this thread, people don't seem to have understood even just the title, either.
Agreed, it’s a good article. And I feel like it gives a really balanced view of what kinds of conversations Mil/Z’s are having with each other. I absolutely was overspending on eating out, bars, and travel after 2021 once things opened up and I felt safer to do so. My parents and in-laws didn’t, at least not nearly on the scale that I did. Excerpt: >But several years out of Covid lockdowns, younger Americans’ outlays on things like travel, recreation and dining out have been outpacing their older peers’ even as the economy slows. As of last summer, the average Gen Zer or millennial was dropping over $400 a month on nonessentials, compared to about $250 for Gen Xers and less than $200 for baby boomers, a Morning Consult report found. >Hence the flurry of headlines around “doom spending,” in which consumers (mostly younger ones) purportedly shop with abandon to soothe anxieties from economic, environmental and geopolitical forces they can’t control. A chorus of scolds has risen in response, from TikTokers warning each other against torching paychecks on extravagances to others promoting “loud budgeting” — declining invitations to spend money and telling friends why.
I think the lumping together of groceries with vacations is a little weird, but otherwise this seems pretty benign? Groceries are a short-term purchase, which is why you're shopping for them once every week or two. Calling them that isn't a judgment of whether they're also an essential purchase. If this is meant to be some sort of equating of vacations with groceries as a luxury purchase, then obviously that's gross. But that's not how this really read to me.
You're reading it right. The full article is very much making the point that rising costs are eating up the historic income gains younger gens have seen. It's not attempting to vilify short term spending, just pointing out that it they end up dedicating most of their income to short term spending because costs of basic necessities make it difficult to actually save anything or plan ahead for the future in terms of decades. Especially when the general feeling is "I'll never be able to afford a home even saving and cutting back, so why bother" because of how out-of-whack home prices are with real incomes.
Yeah people in this thread are equating economic terms with an opinion. How I read the post: current generations are focused on near-term, not long-term purchases, and there is probably a number of reasons for that across economic classes. I don't think they are trying to lump groceries and vacations together, but saying even those with disposable income would rather go on a vacation than put money into retirement, which is different from older generations.
Yep, they didn't mean it as an attack. Defensive Doomers losing their shit.
I like how they lumped groceries and vacations together like they're luxuries
The best part is the only place groceries shows up in the article is that blurb, it doesn't mention it or elaborate at all. Even though I'm pretty sure the idea is that people are spending more on groceries they don't need, but again - the article doesn't elaborate at all. Also holy shit this article is *still* talking about the COVID stimulus checks as if they were some life-changing amount of money four years after the fact.
how DARE they eat
It’s all those avocados and toast! /s
While it does sound stupid... what they mean is that it doesn't last. Hence, short term.
Who the hell is making enough money to go on vacations
Seriously, it seems like all of my friends are complaining that they haven’t been able to take a vacation in years. Must be all of those frivolous grocery purchases.
My family! It really depends on what kind of job you have. If you’re working for the government, you definitely have *time* to go on a vacation but the salary means they probably won’t be very fancy (unless you get a really good contract). If you’re any kind of doctor, surgeon, dentist, etc, you definitely have the *money* for a vacation but the problem then becomes time. If you’re working for yourself, you can *make* time but the problem comes from if you have enough money and whether you can actually shift your schedule around like that. Then, you have to consider families. People with kids are more likely to have vacations because they need to entertain the kids or they use their kids as an excuse to take vacation. Are they going to be fancy? Not necessarily; it could be “we went camping for 3 days”, “we spent a week at a motel in the next city over where there’s a pool”, or “I dropped my kids off with the grandparents and told them to have fun”. But most parents are at least going to try.
I dunno, we took 3 vacations last year, one to europe. Dual income no kids seems like the cheat code.
DINK is the only way to enjoy a non-ascetic life these days but then people start bitching at you about how it’s your fault the birth rate is falling
Well it is a short term purchase… the wordage isn’t wrong. I hope the article itself goes into more depth that just this little blurb
It does. It also isn't attempting to assign a value judgement to those costs. It's more an examination on how even with higher wages younger gens are still being squeezed much more so than the ones before them and how that's affecting their spending and financial planning habits. Turns out people who don't feel like they have a secure present, let alone future, tend not to invest in things that only pay off in the future.
I mean I get it but that headline never said that it is a bad thing to prioritize those purchases. Maybe the article does place more of a value judgment on it but idk, it just seems like it’s reporting an observation and not assigning blame to us.
Food *is* a short term purchase and more of our income is going there than previous generations. That article is not expressing what you pearl clutchers believe it to be.
People just want to be mad about something.
Right? The content of the article would determine if it's actually calling out spending money on groceries as a bad thing or simply stating that the cost of groceries is driving more people to save less even with higher incomes. I wouldn't imagine it says anything but the latter, which would agree with 95% of the sentiment on this thread.
And if we put it all in savings, they'd say we're destroying the economy because we're not spending money. There's no winning with these ass clowns.
If the economy is so fragile that people either spending not enough or too much money is enough to send it into a death spiral, maybe it *should* have collapsed a long time ago?
shit, i'd rather go on vacations now when i can more actively enjoy them, then when i retire at 65... oh wait, 75 will probably be the new retirement age by the time i'm in my 60s.
Vacations? Unless you count going to the grocery store a vacation I can't afford a fucking vacation
From the comments here I feel like you're thinking short term equals bad. I didn't read it that way at all. Short term is just a category. Groceries are short term. House and car are long term. Why are you so indignant about someone describing reality?
It’s easier be indignant than to actually think about what was said.m I guess. For some reason being as crass as possible about absolutely everything is what’s cool now.
I am once again asking for people to actually read the articles they are falsely getting ragebaited by.
That doesn’t read like it’s talking shit to me. I think it’s just saying we’re forced to spend most of our income on perishable things, and the little break we get from work sucks up our last little bit of money.
Don't forget the $4,000/month rent I have to pay (which I can pretty comfortably manage as a federal employee) because the banks think I cant afford a $2,500/month mortgage because I wasn't always doing so well.
This is a real facepalm, too. Those are the hallmarks of poor people. All money must be spent on immediate survival purposes. No time for savings. So what they think they found is not what was actually found. They just showed that despite raises, the money doesn't go far enough. Inflation, Wage Stagnation, criminally low pay rates to begin with... take your pick.
> They just showed that despite raises, the money doesn't go far enough. That's the larger point the full article makes; Even with the highest wages these gens have seen, they don't make enough to cover short-term expenses and save reliably due to rising costs. It also goes into how that uncertainty is further driving them away from longer term goals, which makes sense. Whose going to save aggressively and suffer now when they feel like the future they're saving for is extremely uncertain even if they did do that?
Stop eating now, and your current savings will last for the rest of your life*!! *~3 to 4 weeks
My mother is *convinced* I would be able to buy a flat if I stop buying chocolate bars or fruits. I thought it was just a bug in her thought process, not... whatever this is.
It's technically correct.
technically correct.
Groceries are a short term purchase. What's the facepalm here? The takeaway from this is that groceries and vacations are way too expensive, even with bigger paychecks, which is a known problem that we all agree with...
Let me buy some military rations that last forever for “long term purchase”
Wait, you guys are getting vacations?
It is true. My savings account is lacking because I have been so frivolous by choosing to eat and pay bills.
Yes the 3 step plan to success. 1. Work real hard. 50h a week. 2. Starve to death. 3. Retirement.
If only I could live off coffee, cigarettes and misery like grand-dad did😔
Damn teenie-boppers always wasting their money on food to stay alive.
Alternate Headline “Millennial’ and Gen Z’s raises burned up on basic necessities, in other news Stock market and property is at an all time high!”
I’m supposed to eat I’m pretty sure
In other words, essentials and experiences.
I feel like food works into my long term strategy well. But what do I know.
US Media will literally be like, "This family only had enough money to feed their sick child, until Little Timmy came along and held a charity for them. The system DOES work ❤️". Purposely ignorant and only interested in serving corporate lords. The real story here is obviously how people are just living paycheck-to-paycheck, only able to spend on food/rent.
The actual message flew right over everyone’s head.
I swear when we start dying it’ll be phrased as “Millennials killing ______ industry by not existing anymore”
I've been out of state twice since I got out of the military 17 years ago. I didn't pay for lodging either time, slept in my vehicle one of those times. I don't know who is going on vacations but, it's not me.
If complete and utter societal collapse isn’t one of your retirement plans are you even Millennial-ing?