Do you think most Millennials will be better or worse off than Boomers/X?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by oilpsi2high

That's great, except the median home price was $ 47,000 in 1985.

I'd rather pay 11.5% on 47k over 15 years instead of 4% on $ 226,000 for 15 years...


You forgot to mention that the average income was lots, lots lower in 1985 than 2007! No comparison! Get real!
 
Average car price in 1985 was $ 6,495. $ 15,795 in today's dollars.

Can you even buy a new car for 15k right now?

Average car price right now is $ 37,000! That's insane to me.

Average salary in 1985 was $ 16,135. So a car was 40% of salary.

Average salary now is $ 46,800.

Want that new car? It'll cost ya 79% of that. Hope you enjoy the ride.

I guess you could argue that cars are lasting longer, but I am not sure. My first car was a 1988 Cavalier that lasted until 2007. I don't see my 2007 replacement vehicle lasting until 2026...

Man that was depressing just typing out.
 
Originally Posted by gfh77665
Originally Posted by oilpsi2high

That's great, except the median home price was $ 47,000 in 1985.

I'd rather pay 11.5% on 47k over 15 years instead of 4% on $ 226,000 for 15 years...


You forgot to mention that the average income was lots, lots lower in 1985 than 2007! No comparison! Get real!


I got you.

1985, new home was about 3x salary.

2019? Almost 5x.
 
Originally Posted by oilpsi2high
Originally Posted by gfh77665
Originally Posted by Astro14

In 1972, they were paying 8% on their mortgage. Twice the cost of money now.


All of your post was GREAT, but that one in particular is the best. People WHINE how tough it is right now, and they can get sub 4% in some cases! My wife and I had a whopping 11.5% mortgage in the mid 80's. Even then, we did not WHINE about it. Instead, we delayed gratification, worked hard, and payed it off in less than 5 years!


That's great, except the median home price was $ 47,000 in 1985.

I'd rather pay 11.5% on 47k over 15 years instead of 4% on $ 226,000 for 15 years...


Yeah and prices have skyrocketed since. I remember selling a house that someone had bought in 1982 for about 100k, It sold for around 1 million about 10 years ago and I just checked and I guess those buyers converted it to condos and sold it for about 2.4 million.
 
Originally Posted by oilpsi2high

I got you.

1985, new home was about 3x salary.

2019? Almost 5x.



And todays new home is 2400 ft. while in 1985 it was 1700 ft. Low ceilings then, high ceilings now...Formica counter tops then, granite counter tops now. Etc.

GET REAL!
 
Worse.
The millennials are going to have to deal with the $22 Trillion (and rising) national debt, the crumbling infrastructure, and the environmental catastrophe that we are handing down to them, and because of our coddling of them, many of them do not have the intestinal fortitude for it. We are leaving them with a mess and I feel very sorry for them.
 
Originally Posted by oilpsi2high
Average car price in 1985 was $ 6,495. $ 15,795 in today's dollars.

Can you even buy a new car for 15k right now?

Average car price right now is $ 37,000! That's insane to me.

Average salary in 1985 was $ 16,135. So a car was 40% of salary.

Average salary now is $ 46,800.

Want that new car? It'll cost ya 79% of that. Hope you enjoy the ride.

I guess you could argue that cars are lasting longer, but I am not sure. My first car was a 1988 Cavalier that lasted until 2007. I don't see my 2007 replacement vehicle lasting until 2026...

Man that was depressing just typing out.



You've got to stop with the apples-oranges comparison.

Average cars then sucked. Really sucked, compared with today's cars.

That 1985 car was running an emission-controlled/strangled carburetor that was unreliable, cost a fortune to fix, and as a result, had 150 HP (if it was a V-8, less if it was a V-6) and got about 16 MPG.

Tops.

Plugs lasted 30,000 if you were lucky. Tires half that. Oil had to be changed every 3,000 miles.

You were lucky if it lasted until 100,000 miles.

Or, maybe you were unlucky, since it didn't have ABS, or cruise control, or air bags, or any of the safety/convenience features that even the cheapest economy car today comes with, standard.

Sure, it cost less.

But you got far less: it was achingly slow, it guzzled gas, wasn't very safe in comparison, and wore out quickly.

We live in an incredible age of cars.

The average econobox today is faster than my 1985 Trans Am while getting more than twice the MPG and lasting far longer with less maintenance and much greater safety. And that econobox costs LESS than my TA did, in straight up dollars.

Adjusted for inflation, an average modern car like the Honda Accord V-6 is about the same price as the '85 TA AND has nearly twice the HP along with far more room, comfort, speed, brakes, safety, features, and more than double the MPG.

You drove an '88 Cavalier?

Have you forgotten what a terrible heap that car was?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by gfh77665
Originally Posted by oilpsi2high

I got you.

1985, new home was about 3x salary.

2019? Almost 5x.



And todays new home is 2400 ft. while in 1985 it was 1700 ft. Low ceilings then, high ceilings now...Formica counter tops then, granite counter tops now. Etc.

GET REAL!

That is an interesting counterpoint; houses have grown and as such, cost more. That does eat into that 5x number.

FWIW the stat I heard was that in 1950 the median price of a house was 2.2x the median income while it was 5x in 2015 or 2016 (forgot now). I hadn't heard of the 3x for 1985. That makes for an interesting datapoint, but, I suspect houses started growing during the boom that followed around what, 2000? when the real estate market shot off.

Originally Posted by Astro14

We live in an incredible age of cars.

I agree, although to play a counterpoint for a moment, stats say we drive more than ever before. So the cars can rack up more miles, but that might not lead to a happy 20 year ownership.

Then again, average vehicle life is something like 11 years now, and still going up. Cars are being driven longer. They certainly can last longer today. And are doing so.

Now if we could only stop salting our roads...
 
Originally Posted by Astro14


You've got to stop with the apples-oranges comparison.

Average cars then sucked. Really sucked, compared with today's cars.

That 1985 car was running an emission-controlled/strangled carburetor that was unreliable, cost a fortune to fix, and as a result, had 150 HP (if it was a V-8, less if it was a V-6) and got about 16 MPG.

Tops.

Plugs lasted 30,000 if you were lucky. Tires half that. Oil had to be changed every 3,000 miles.

You were lucky if it lasted until 100,000 miles.



Cars last longer then 100k now with less maintenance agreed and drive nicer/way safer in terms of structure not safety nannies.

But one would expect that over time as things improve which they did. Majority of people simply care about getting around which cars did then and seem to do now albeit more comfortably. My parents managed 200k out of 1980's cars like 85 AMC Eagle, 86 GMC Suburban and 85 Buick Century so the shorter life no idea which cars that was. They did not put massive amounts of money into cars either, used normal country mechanics to maintain the fleet.
 
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by oilpsi2high
~snip~



~snip~


With technological advancements come new technological standards. Cars are safer and 'last' longer than before but that only goes into the survival rates for car crashes.

You can get a brand new fiesta out the door for under $13k. A brand new focus for under $17. They won't have any technology gizmos or sunroof or leather but they're cheap.
 
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by oilpsi2high
Average car price in 1985 was $ 6,495. $ 15,795 in today's dollars.

Can you even buy a new car for 15k right now?

Average car price right now is $ 37,000! That's insane to me.

Average salary in 1985 was $ 16,135. So a car was 40% of salary.

Average salary now is $ 46,800.

Want that new car? It'll cost ya 79% of that. Hope you enjoy the ride.

I guess you could argue that cars are lasting longer, but I am not sure. My first car was a 1988 Cavalier that lasted until 2007. I don't see my 2007 replacement vehicle lasting until 2026...

Man that was depressing just typing out.



You've got to stop with the apples-oranges comparison.

Average cars then sucked. Really sucked, compared with today's cars.

That 1985 car was running an emission-controlled/strangled carburetor that was unreliable, cost a fortune to fix, and as a result, had 150 HP (if it was a V-8, less if it was a V-6) and got about 16 MPG.

Tops.

Plugs lasted 30,000 if you were lucky. Tires half that. Oil had to be changed every 3,000 miles.

You were lucky if it lasted until 100,000 miles.

Or, maybe you were unlucky, since it didn't have ABS, or cruise control, or air bags, or any of the safety/convenience features that even the cheapest economy car today comes with, standard.

Sure, it cost less.

But you got far less: it was achingly slow, it guzzled gas, wasn't very safe in comparison, and wore out quickly.

We live in an incredible age of cars.

The average econobox today is faster than my 1985 Trans Am while getting more than twice the MPG and lasting far longer with less maintenance and much greater safety. And that econobox costs LESS than my TA did, in straight up dollars.

Adjusted for inflation, an average modern car like the Honda Accord V-6 is about the same price as the '85 TA AND has nearly twice the HP along with far more room, comfort, speed, brakes, safety, features, and more than double the MPG.

You drove an '88 Cavalier?

Have you forgotten what a terrible heap that car was?


Actually the Cavalier was one of the most reliable cars we've owned. Only scrapped it due to rust.

That's cool that new cars have all of these great improvements. Where's the salary improvements so that we can afford one? Surely education has gotten better since that's way more expensive now too. Since we're better workers, why aren't we getting compensated as such?

This is basically an argument that nobody will ever win.
 
Originally Posted by oilpsi2high
That's cool that new cars have all of these great improvements. Where's the salary improvements so that we can afford one? Surely education has gotten better since that's way more expensive now too. Since we're better workers, why aren't we getting compensated as such?

This is basically an argument that nobody will ever win.

If your salary hasn't kept pace with inflation vote with your feet--that's what my college prof called it when you change jobs.

it is hard to keep upping one's job skills as the years go on, and at some point I'm sure age works against you (in that some employers won't want to pay what you are worth). I get that. But still. Up to only you to change jobs or location if the pay isn't keeping up.
 
Far better off. For sure.

Both my children, aged 31 and 34 will tell you the same thing. They are hard workers and don't complain or whine. They look at the entire world as something they want to make better. My daughter as a future nurse practitioner, my son as an industrial designer. The tools at their disposal and their knowledge of how to leverage them and there confidence blows my mind.

I'm envious of them.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Sam_Julier
Far better off. For sure.

Both my children, aged 31 and 34 will tell you the same thing. They are hard workers and don't complain or whine. They look at the entire world as something they want to make better. My daughter as a future nurse practitioner, my son as an industrial designer. The tools at their disposal and their knowledge of how to leverage them and there confidence blows my mind.

I'm envious of them.


I think your kids are the exception of their generation, not the rule...
 
Originally Posted by Alfred_B
If we aren't annihilated in a nuclear war, they will be better off.


Well we could always just disappear in an instant as we could be in a false vacuum we would disappear at the speed of light if we transition to a true vacuum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum
 
In a few years we are going to have nuclear bombs orbiting above our heads so a nuclear war is far more likely event than being in a false vacuum.
 
Originally Posted by Alfred_B
In a few years we are going to have nuclear bombs orbiting above our heads so a nuclear war is far more likely event than being in a false vacuum.


It's not a problem being in a false vacuum, it's just that if there's a true vacuum for it to go to, you'd disappear at the speed of light.

Also I thought the treaty banning nuclear weapons in orbit was still in force.
 
My money would be on worse. The Earth will (has begun to) go into its shock. Way too warm, way too dry, food shortages mean high prices, higher security all over the place, freedom of movement impeded like you can't believe now.

The next generations will be herded around figuratively and the soul will die. The insulated among us won't be among us....they'll be dotted around in climate controlled compounds.

Hey, all we do now is talk about data breaches and mistrust. We're well on our way to garbage life.

Listen to what our clown politicians say and to whom they're appealing. Don't act surprised.

Think global, act local.
 
Why do you think we started a space force a few months back and just canceled the INF treaty last month? Everything is moving towards canceling the OST as soon as we have the ability to dominate it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top