Most Millennials, Gen Zs Not Able to Save in Today’s Economy

 

A new survey from the National Endowment for Financial Education (NAFE) reveals the truly dire nature of the financial situation of young people in America today.

When asked how well the statement “I am just getting by financially” describes their current situation, 71 percent of Gen Zs (18 to 29 year-olds) said that statement describes their financial situation at least “somewhat well” and one in four said that statement describes their situation completely or very well. 

The financial situation of Millennials (30 to 44 year-olds) is just as bad.  Almost one in three—31 percent—of Millennials said that just getting by describes their financial situation completely or very well and another 34 percent said “somewhat well.”

Among those 45 and over, a still very high 57 percent said “just getting by” describes their situation at least somewhat well. 

Saving requires the ability to put some money away at the end of the month.  Saving is particularly important for young people who should be accumulating assets to meet important life goals like getting married, buying a home, or helping children pay for a college education.

Most young Americans are having difficulty meeting their immediate expenses. 

The NAFE survey found that only 29 percent of Gen Zs and 36 percent of Millennials were able to save consistently; they always had some money left over at the end of the month.

By comparison, 38 percent of Gen Zs and 37 percent of Millennials never or rarely had any money left over at the end of the month.  

The inability of younger Gen Zs to save may be due to college costs.  Older Gen Zs and Millennials, however, are in their prime earning years and many do not have children to provide for.

Most young people that are not able to save now may never be able to.  A study of the lifetime earnings of five million Americans by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that for the median American, earnings stagnate between 35 and 55. 

The result is that large numbers of Americans have little hope for their financial future. 

The NEFE survey asked whether respondents agreed with the following statement “I feel like I will never have the things I want in life.”

Fifty-nine percent of Gen Zs and Millennials at least somewhat agreed that they would never have the things that they want in life. 

And when asked whether they ‘were concerned that the money they had or will save won’t last,” 72 percent of Gen Zs as well as 72 percent of Millennials were at least somewhat concerned their savings would run out.

 

 

Scott Galloway: Young People are Opting Out

Analysis Correct:  Prof G says the economy is broken for young people.  I've been blogging about this for over a decade now.  The answer: economic freedom.  

Falling Behind: Financial Expert Shows Real Earnings of College Graduates Lower Than in 1983

Financial expert Robert Gill estimates that to live as well as one's parents (or grandparents) did in 1983 earning $30,000 a year, at today's prices one would have to earn $162,342.  

That's a 441 percent increase.

Compare that to the change in earnings of new college graduates in 1983 and 2023.  

The average earnings of a new college graduate in 1983: $17,700

The average earnings of a new college graduate in 2023: $58,862

Earnings of new college graduates are up just 246% 

Or think of it this way.  If $30,000 a year was what a family needed to live comfortably in 1983, a new college graduate earned 59 percent of that.  A new graduate with an engineering degree ($24,100 a year) could almost support a middle class family.

Today, it's impossible with one, oftentimes two, college graduates working full time as the earnings of new grads ($58,862) are just 36 percent of $2,342.   

  

Jonathan Turley: A Majority of Stanford Students Support Canceling Conservative Speakers

 

I've blogged before that the biggest problem that America faces is that our elites don't believe in American values such as free speech, individual liberty or the free enterprise system.  

Jonathan Turley's April 19 column provides more evidence of the elite disdain for these American values. 

Stanford University is at the very top of the hierarchy of American higher education.  Holders of Stanford diploma are well represented among those in  top government jobs, in the tech sector, and on Wall Street.  So what Stanford students and grads think matters a lot. 

According to a recent survey by FIRE, Stanford students have little tolerance for those with views other than their own. 

Last year Stanford students shouted down Judge Kyle Duncan at Stanford Law School.  Instead of defending the Judge, Law School Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach criticized the Judge for appearing and sided with the students disrupting his speech.  Oh the irony!

Turley writes of the findings of FIRE's 2024 survey of the views of Stanford students regarding free speech:  

FIRE released “The Judge Duncan Shoutdown: What Stanford Students Think,” including 54% of Stanford students said that Judge Duncan’s visit should have been canceled by the administration.

Another 36% stated that using physical violence to shutdown a campus speaker is “always,” “sometimes,” or “rarely” acceptable.

75% said the same about shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking.

Not surprising, only six percent of conservative students now feel comfortable disagreeing with professors.

The survey is consistent with other surveys and polling in higher education.

The early years of adulthood play a critical role in the formation of our attitudes toward ourselves, others and society at large.  That so many young Americans have closed themselves off to other opinions is disturbing.  That such intolerance is especially widespread among the elites bodes ill for the future of America.

Though framed in terms of consideration of those with different view on political questions, the intolerance displayed by Stanford students is unlikely to be contained to the political realm.

As rising generations today assume leadership roles in American institutions, intolerance of others is also likely to be reflected in the nature of business dealings, in the administration of government, in medical treatment, in foreign policy and in personal and marital relations.  The result: more failures of business judgement, more wasteful public expenditure, more medical errors, more war and regional conflict, and more unhappy marriages and personal relationships.         

John Stuart Mill wrote about the role of free thought and speech in human progress:

It is hardly possible to overstate the value, in the present low state of human improvement, of placing human beings in contact with persons dissimilar to themselves, and with modes of thought and action unlike those which they are familiar. ...  Such communication has always been, and is peculiarly in the present age, one of the primary sources of progress.  (Principles of Political Economy, 1848) 

Higher education has traditionally been viewed as a means for the advancement of human progress.  Today, in many ways, it is the reverse.  The intolerant attitudes acquired and reinforced through one's time on the campuses of Stanford and other elite universities are a barrier to human progress.  A barrier to progress created by the universities themselves and the faculty and administrators that run them.    

        

Slouching Towards 1984

 

The US House of Representatives voted 273-147 last week to extend the many tenacles of the surveillance state by forcing businesses as mundane as fitness centers or hardware stores to assist the NSA in warrantless searches of US citizens.

The founders would be aghast. 

The framers of the United States Constitution were so concerned that the government would intrude on the private lives of citizens that they wrote a prohibition on warrantless searches of persons and property into Article 4 the Constitution.  Article 4 states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Yet warrantless searches of the electronic communications of US citizens is exactly what this bill allows. 

Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center explained in a series of posts on Twitter/X

I’ll explain how this new power works. Under current law, the government can compel “electronic communications service providers” that have direct access to communications to assist the NSA in conducting Section 702 surveillance.

In practice, that means companies like Verizon and Google must turn over the communications of the targets of Section 702 surveillance. (The targets must be foreigners overseas, although the communications can—and do—include communications with Americans.)

Through a seemingly innocuous change to the definition of “electronic communications surveillance provider,” an amendment offered by House intel committee (HPSCI) leaders and passed by the House vastly expands the universe of entities that can be compelled to assist the NSA.

If the bill becomes law, any company or individual that provides ANY service whatsoever may be forced to assist in NSA surveillance, as long as they have access to equipment on which communications are transmitted or stored—such as routers, servers, cell towers, etc. That sweeps in an enormous range of U.S. businesses that provide wifi to their customers and therefore have access to equipment on which communications transit. Barber shops, laundromats, fitness centers, hardware stores, dentist’s offices… the list goes on and on. 

It also includes commercial landlords that rent out the office space where tens of millions of Americans go to work every day—offices of journalists, lawyers, nonprofits, financial advisors, health care providers, and more.

Ron Paul explains how the National Security Agency and other elements of the surveillance states have used loopholes in Section 702 to conduct surveillance of US citizens.

Section 702 authorizes warrantless surveillance of foreign citizens. When the FISA Act was passed, surveillance state boosters promised that 702 warrantless surveillances would never be used against American citizens. However, intelligence agencies have used a loophole in 702, allowing them to subject to warrantless surveillance any American who communicated with a non-US citizen who was a 702 target. Intelligence agencies could then also conduct warrantless surveillance on any Americans who communicated with the new American target. This Section 702 loophole has been used so often to subject Americans to warrantless wiretapping that it has been referred to as the surveillance state’s crown jewel.

Section 702 has already been widely abused by the NSA, FBI and other spying agencies.  Just last year court documents revealed that the FBI had improperly searched for information on US citizens 278,000 times including searches for information on January 6 defendants and the killing of George Floyd. 

Young Americans should be particularly concerned.  It’s no fun to be watched by the government all the time.  Just ask Chinese dissidents like When Chen. 

When Chen picked up his phone to vent his anger at getting a parking ticket, his message on WeChat was a drop in the ocean of daily posts on China's biggest social network.  But soon after his tirade against "simple-minded" traffic cops in June, he found himself in the tentacles of the communist country's omniscient surveillance apparatus.  Chen quickly deleted the post, but officers tracked him down and detained him within hours, accusing him of "insulting the police".  He was locked up for five days for "inappropriate speech".

George Orwell wrote of the dangers of mass surveillance in Nineteen Eighty Four.  His 1949 novel was intended as a warning of how the surveillance state would crush the individual and free thought.  Unfortunately, in modern Washington, Orwell’s novel is more like a “how-to” manual.   

 

 

 

Five Signs Biden’s Economic Policies Have Been a Disaster

 

Young Americans today are experiencing a replay of the economic problems that their parents and grandparents experienced in the 1970s: Stagflation.  Stagflation is the combination of tepid economic growth and rapidly rising prices. 

Both low growth and high inflation are a direct result of the policies of the Biden Administration.

Biden’s high tax and oppressive regulatory policies have throttled economic activity. 

At the same time, his massive spending programs and deficits have showered special interests with cash. 

The result: negligible economic growth, diminished employment opportunities, rising prices and high interest rates. 

Here’s five pieces of evidence that demonstrate that Joe Biden’s economic policies have hurt young  Americans 

1. Small business confidence at lowest level in 11 years.

Young people are more likely to work at smaller firms than are older workers.  The National Federation of Independent Business survey shows that small business owners are more pessimistic than at any time since 2013.  That includes the pandemic years where many small businesses failed during the shutdowns.  Also note how small business confidence soared during the Trump years. 

 

2. No full-time jobs have been created in the past 14 months

Job opportunities are particularly important for new graduates and younger workers looking to switch jobs.  The number of full-time jobs in the United States is same as 14 months ago and the number of full-time jobs has crashed in the last six months according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

 

3. No signs of a Federal Reserve rate cut

High interest rates make it difficult for young people to buy a home,.  The average rate on a 30-year home mortgage is over 7.5 percent.  Expectations for a rate cut in 2024 have evaporated as investors no longer view the federal Reserve as able to bring inflation under control.  According to Reuters:

“Expectations for how deeply and how soon the Fed will cut rates have shifted rapidly over the last few months, as investors grow increasingly doubtful that policymakers will be able to lower borrowing costs without sparking an inflationary rebound in a strong economy. The Fed has projected it will cut rates by 75 basis points this year.”

4. Food prices have risen by almost 40 percent since 2019.

Food is a larger share of total spending by lower income and younger households.  The increase in food prices has far outstripped wage growth.  Have your earnings increased by 40 percent since 2019?

 

5. More Americans see their financial situation getting worse

or the first time since the Federal Reserve began collecting data in 2014, a majority of Americans see their personal financial situation as worse than the previous year.  This again is a stark contrast to the Trump years in which Americans saw their situation getting better each year. 

 

Bonus: the 2020s are so bad that Americans now long for the 1970s!

 

Gen Z Culture Roundup

 

Gen Z is facing early 'mid-life crisis' due to social media, US Surgeon General warns  

Gen Z Rudest Generation Ever  

Gen Z: bad office etiquette might be holding you back at work

I’m Gen Z and proud NOT to work – I’ve quit three jobs because bosses don’t give me gym breaks… I won’t be a victim

Survey Says Gen Z Workforce Is Toxic, 'Least Reliable' — And That's Just The Start