It is an American dream, maybe, but not the only one. It's certainly not the one prominent among my friends and family, who are steadily clustering ever closer together. Cohousing is popular.
I didn't buy a house because I wanted a place to myself; I bought a house because I wanted to have enough space to have people over for dinner and throw parties. A house big enough for that is too big for just me, so I share it with friends. Much better than all of us living separately in apartments, or (ugh!) in entire separate houses.
Joof means the classical American dream, which involves owning a house in the suburbs with a spacious well-groomed lawn and white picket fence. And of course a car, because absolutely nothing is in walking distance anymore. I agree this is no longer the most prevalent aspiration among Americans younger than 30.
I'm a gen X human that wishes I had bucked that script. It's socially isolating and an outdated economically given the dynamism of employment these days. Shout out to gen y on for calling bullshit on that schema.
Good enough. You dudes rock, you have better taste in life and everything in general than my cornball generation. Make this world better, it sucks as is.
Oh god, the lawn. I'll never understand the lawn thing. Space to hangout outside is good, a garden or landscape is a cool hobby, but a lawn is a time/money sink that doesn't look that great, is a poor use of water and I'm allergic to anyway. It's also a great way to get passive aggressive letters from the home owners association.
Tbh, I've only lived in places with every bedroom rented to a different tenant after I moved out from home.
Communal living is very good but I'd much prefer the "American" version where its essentially 3-5 roommates I can trust than a much larger version like in the article.
Great if it works for you, but buddy I could never go back to having roommates, sharing a bathroom or a kitchen, or even having a shared wall with a neighbor. I like my privacy and security, and no, "my bedroom door closes" doesn't meet the bar.
I'm considering building a tech worker commune in the mountains of North Carolina. Solar/wind generation on site, fiber connectivity, etc. Communal kitchen/coworking space. Your home would be a tiny house you build or pull to the site.
Your living arrangements are what you make of it. I've lived in a 4000 sq foot home in the suburbs, and I've lived in a condo in a major metro (Chicago).
Nuts to possessions and competing on living space, I just want to spend time with good people.
There are two problems here. One is when the people are less than good. You get 5% jerks, and they can ruin your commune.
The second problem is when you're at least somewhat introverted. There comes a time when I no longer want to spend time with people, even if they're good.
If you had to you could if you've survived it in the past. Clearly if you have the money you can choose not to. Not everyone can. And even when you can now, health, finances, relationship status all change over time.
Over the last 20ish years I have gone from dorm life to living with a roommate to living with a girlfriend to living alone to renting a room in a house (twice) to living with a girlfriend to getting married to said girlfriend.
So many people don't even use a kitchen so I can see where being able to live very cheaply with the bare essentials can be very attractive to many.
Firstly, your typical shared space (dorm, apartment) is designed to be cheap and you probably hear your neighbors through the walls. This isn't a requirement.
Secondly (this is more a theory), having a roomie is often just too informal to settle on and enforce social contracts for public spaces.
Yeah man, I'll clean the dishes. (Never cleans the dishes).
Although in college, I used to have the apartment where people just showed up randomly and chilled / did homework / played a game for 10 mins and leave (or crash on the couch). They'd help clean the place, were free to leave some food in the fridge and such and were generally very respectful. Donate an N64 or a sound system to the cause.Turned out my roomie hated it and never said anything, but it worked well for me. I just don't like it when people feel like a 'guest' or I'm treated like a 'guest'. It's uncomfortable.
Nowadays it's rude (and time consuming) to just drop by and I rarely see my friends on weekdays. Then they offer me drinks and such and theres a weird formaility to it that I don't enjoy at all. I think we need a 'third place', effectively a community hangout where everyone feels they have some sort of shared ownership and you can also expect people to be there regularly. The closest example I've found is our local hackerspace, but the audience for that is somewhat limited.
This opened my eyes because the Chinese international students in my university (the only contact I have with people from that country) buy the most extravagant stuff. I'm somewhat knowledgeable about fashion brands, and I see them wear what would amount to $1000+ in outfits daily. And that's just clothing I recognize. "Wanting to own everything" (that is trendy!) is a common stereotype of them in my university. That said, in general they're humble and nice.
Guess I'm only getting exposed to the Chinese 1%, so thanks for this article.
> Guess I'm only getting exposed to the Chinese 1%
That's probably part of it. Of course, to extrapolate large trends such as 'China's Millennials are happy to own nothing' based on 5000 or so people without looking into their ability to own things would be just as silly an sweeping generalization to make.
Eh, while it's true that most Chinese students who study abroad have wealthy parents, I think the article vastly overstates the prevalence of the "You+ attitude". I think the majority of Chinese would still like to own nice things if they could. My cousins on my mother's side of the family live in Shanghai, and they definitely like to buy designer and name brand goods.
I always figured that China's consumerism itself is a fashion trend. After a generation of deprivation, all this branding and the social status they promise are attractive simply it's so novel. It will hopefully get old soon, as it has for the people in the article.
wow, $1000 for an outfit? Mine costs less than 100$, including shoes and a jacket for the cold. What "accessories" are we talking about? Unless it is an iPhone, one can very comfortably dress in 100$ (and much less in summer)
My boots were $250 that I've had for 7 years now. Jacket $600 (going on 8 years), sweater 50, glasses 500 (going on 5 years), pants 50, other random shit. I rather buy super expensive quality items every decade than constantly shopping for small crap.
Only stuff I've bought in the past half decade is maybe like a few t shirts and socks/underwear. Everything else lasts.
Absolutely no clue what you wear for $100 in the Winter. Summer I can understand. I guess it's the boots/jackets that really change the price as 3 piece summer outfits I agree should be below 100.
A 400$ jacked can go for as low as 90$ if the season is over and you buy a winter jacket of last years collection in april.
Glasses are cheaper to buy 10$ a year insurance that replace at any physical damage than to buy expensive – 190$ once, plus 10$ a year. (but I won’t count glasses for outfit, as that’s stupid – glasses are a disability tool, and I say that as someone who is short sighted).
Sweater for 50 is far overpriced, look more in the direction of 10. Pants are normal, though. I’d even say a good jeans is more like 80$.
I like to look fashionable though. I already went through my $3/shirt, $35/outfit phase and it was great, but I've moved past it now.
Those prices already are cheap. That's a $40/year jacket. I mean I guess I could hunt and wait for deals but I don't have the brainpower to track yet another "thing" you know? I only spent a few hundred on clothing in the past decade with the majority of my main purchases being at the start of the decade. Shaving off $50 here and there from that would do virtually nothing for me. If you shop frequently then by all means hunt for deals but I wear the exact same thing every single day (this is where I makeup the money I lost on expensive items by not getting them on sale).
Please don't pretend like the prices that you are posting are in any way normal. Fit, quality, and style are greatly sacrificed for price. I can't even remember the last time I saw a $10 t-shirt that wasn't on sale or clearance.
With that mentality, I should just stay home in the fetal position because it's better than anything since I won't be spending a dime. Honestly, it's cheap as fuck. Have you met a regular person? Regular people go shopping every week for different shit, its unbelievable. I have friends that buy bags for $2k each, hats for $200, etc. Just because I literally only bought a few sweaters, a jacket, and boots a decade ago does not in any way make me inefficient. I am also not burning money by buying $50 sweaters.
Where do you live? There's no way you live in the modern world if you think $10/sweater is a regular price for something because that's absolutely insane. Do you only wear 90's crewnecks? I can see those being $10 at the local goodwill. If you do then why are you trying so extremely hard to find the lowest prices possible? Are you living in poverty?
Buy during sale at H&M, C&A, Vero Moda, etc. Normal clothes.
Normal people don’t have money to buy bags for $2k. Normal people are struggling to pay their bills while being a single mom with kids. Normal people can be lucky if they can afford clothes from ALDI, and don’t have to go to the Red Cross. That’s the reality for most of the former middle class.
My family luckily doesn’t have to live like that, but you are seriously not "normal person". You’re rich. Your friends are rich.
When your friends buy bags that are over twice the monthly salary of some people, bags that cost more than a vacation for 4 people in another country, then you are rich.
World GDP per capita (PPP) is about $13,100 a year. The median is probably lower than that. I doubt "regular people" buy $1-2K outfits, considering they might still need to pay for food and living space. Perhaps it is you who have not met "a regular person".
Some people, living on uncommonly-high tech salaries in the bay area and similar locations, might indeed spend $1K on a change of clothes. I imagine some other highly-educated professionals in expensive cities might do as well. There is nothing wrong or unreasonable with that, per se. But "$1000 outfit is standard" is a statement that applies to very few people, and implying that it should be the norm is absurd under present world economics.
For the record, in my experience, most people I meet in tech and in the bay area, still won't often get close to wearing $1k. Those who do is often only when you include things like prescription glasses, leather jackets and wearable gadgets ;)
Maybe for someone with a job, but not for the average US college student. Here I'd argue most people wear at most $100-500, depending on how much they care. This is for guys by the way. And like I said, 18-25 year olds without jobs or part time jobs.
I originally typed $1500-2000... I see a lot of Thom Browne stuff here, and that means $350 for a button up, $1000 for shoes. But it's probably a minority still, and you can't tell how much shoes/boots cost without knowing the brand (though I've seen some Rick Owens sneakers).
Edit: Saw you mentioned winter. Yeah that drives my number up. My $1000 was based on fall/spring type of stuff.
I asked him the same question in this thread, here his answer:
"Honestly, [$1000] is cheap as fuck. Have you met a regular person? Regular people go shopping every week for different shit, its unbelievable. I have friends that buy bags for $2k each, hats for $200, etc. Just because I literally only bought a few sweaters, a jacket, and boots a decade ago does not in any way make me inefficient. I am also not burning money by buying $50 sweaters." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10673865
I agree. From my experience there is more pressure than ever for young people to own a house and a car. It's almost a prerequisite to marriage. Even in big cities where it's unreasonable to expect a young person to be able to afford these things there is still a pressure which most often falls upon the parents.
FTA: "Faced with a widening wealth gap and the slowest economic growth in more than two decades, millions like Xiong find themselves priced out of the big cities and are rejecting the consumer trappings of a modern lifestyle. Instead, they’re embracing the sharing economy to a far greater degree than their Western counterparts."
Ah, so rising rent and stagnant wages are causing reduction in lifestyle among the youthful. The article could be shortened to "people have less money, so they are forced to make do with less." There are many discussions about these cultural memes spawned by downward economic trends; some items are useful (sharing a power tool instead of purchasing), but they're the result of funding being constrained and people's expectations adjusting downward as a result. These people are not sworn to poverty, so I doubt they are actually happy to own nothing, so much as grudgingly adapting to owning less than their parents.
EDIT: Communes can make a comeback gracefully as part of this economic trend, but it's still important to understand that generations losing wealth isn't a positive thing.
Decoupling personal happiness from accumulation of consumer goods as an end in itself seems like both a positive and a conceivable thing to me, even if it were a cultural meme with roots that are out of people's direct control such as an economic downturn. These things aren't mutually exclusive.
If x age group, social group, or "middle class" is experiencing an economic downturn - but the country as a whole is stable or upward - are they not still in an economic downturn?
This is a very common phenomenon with statistics... for example I frequently come across people citing that x time in history had early death rates - so you likely wouldn't have lived past 40 - without explaining the majority of deaths were due to infant death from disease. But if they in fact made it past early childhood then those projected maximum age numbers were not relevant.
This is why it's important to not plan based on global averages. One reason why conducting "cohort analysis" is very important in business analytics.
Right, but calling it an "economic downturn" confuses the issue in the same way not including infant mortality does. The important thing to realize here is that the economy is growing, i.e. more overall wealth is being generated. That enables you to ask the question -- if there's more wealth being generated but most people in society are seeing their wealth and income stagnate or decrease, what is going on, and why?
Well in that context the next question should be does growth need to be distributed evenly for the economy to be considered 'healthy'. But for individuals such as the person mentioned in the article this is less relevant, they shouldn't make financial decisions or life choices as if everything is good because the macro-level is seeing positive growth.
People nowdays can afford to buy a new smartphone every year, but they can only afford to live in a tiny capsule far far away from their work and social life.
> it's still important to understand that generations losing wealth isn't a positive thing.
I think it's a very positive thing. The idea that you can rely on wealth is rapidly becoming antiquated, and this strikes me as excellent preparation for a lifestyle where you might lose everything.
A small consolation of sorts, but if you give a generation or two nothing but positive, record-breaking "middle class" economic growth you wind up with Baby Boomers - years that followed a great war and for Americans the greatest economic surge perhaps on record. This is a generation whose parents were raised through the Great Depression and had every material childhood desire whittled down to stubs in mass poverty. Then you give this same generation an adult livelihood and independence with the mass advertising boom with call to actions revolving around "you deserve <product>" this does not promote the most selfless of actions.
Time and time again I've been hearing baby boomers complaining about how young people today aren't "working hard enough" along with them being "so entitled" and pointing to Zuckerberg and random stories about kids selling start-ups for millions as if these are all somehow available to them and that they're being turned stupid by technology instead of "hard work" (this is fairly standard rhetoric not just for conservatives of the generation but even fairly moderate folks in my own experience at least). Then they tend to talk about how hard they worked when they left high school, bought a house, and lived well while saving judiciously similar to the lifestyle choices made in the Millionaire Next Door book.
Setting up a generation with unrealistic economic expectations is perhaps one of the biggest double edged swords the US has wielded in its history. Great for positive energy and all, but perhaps it wasn't entirely a net positive across several generations.
Yeah, except a staggering amount of wealth is being generated, and the people generating it are getting a smaller and smaller piece of it.
Is it smart to be frugal and live within your means? Absolutely. But being forced to be frugal because my boss is keeping more and more of what should be my money is a scam.
I would call it more managing their expectations and/or settling rather than being happy.
I'm sure if you offered any, if not most, of these people a winning lottery ticket of great fortune they'll surely take it.
This goes for millennials here as well. Just cause they're settling for living in mom's basement doesn't mean they wouldn't rather own their home and their own car. It just happens that living at mom's beats living on the park bench.
The thing is there's two kinds of people: those who will stay in their comfort zone, and those who see want more out of life and will raise hell to get what they want.
Just cause these millennials don't raise hell doesn't necessarily mean they're happy. They're just content enough.
Whoa, I too have around two pairs of shoes (for every season, grand total of maybe five) and never owned a car.
"For as little as about $500 a month, You+ residents gain access to a private room with a bathroom"
Whoa whoa, for $500 a month, I imagine you could rent a full apartment mostly anywhere in China, could not you?
Sounds like a very expensive way to own nothing.
Having said that, sharing apartments is all rage where I live. It's cheaper to rent 3 bedroom apartment and divide the price between 3-6 people than renting one bedroom flat for yourself only. In places where housing is expensive this saves young people without stellar paychecks. Company is also nice when you get to choose who to live with.
It is depressing that my generation is framing a forced downgrade in our quality of life as a trendy lifestyle choice.
In both the U.S. and China the economy is growing, but a greater and greater percentage of those gains go to the owners of capital. Instead of demanding a higher percentage of the product of our labor, we're content to take what we're given and downgrade our expectations.
I am a "highly paid" software engineer who works in San Francisco. Plugging in 30% of my take-home pay into Craigslist yields an anemic, depressing list of available properties. So instead of getting ripped off by some scumbag landlord, I built a tiny house in someone's back yard.
If I could afford it, I would rent something nice, or even buy a house, but even with my 6-figure salary, it's not possible. And this is a scam.
My generation, even those of us that are getting the best deal going under Capitalism, are getting ripped off. and it's time we started talking about it that way instead of pretending like we're "living with less" because of some moral or ethical or lifestyle imperative.
And I should be clear -- I think Americans can stand to live with less, I think that co-housing is a legitimate option and I'd choose it if it were available to me. I also think that Americans should be seeing the benefit of increased worker productivity in their compensation, instead of 100% of that productivity increase flowing to the owners of capital.
People are increasingly trying to crowd into a depressingly small and shrinking list of places.
Mostly megapolises like London or hubs like SF, where they then forced to live far enough that commute takes hours and their job takes the rest.
Money concentrate and people feel the need to concentrate as well.
Frankly I don't want to live that way. And I'm on my way to not to.
Some may indeed not have a real choice for whatever reason but to live in a very high cost-of-living area. However, many do have choice but choose to live in core urban areas of a handful of mostly coastal cities. This is a somewhat new thing in SF and has certainly intensified in recent years. However, the new grad who lived in squalor in Manhattan because they couldn't imagine living in Queens or (heaven forbid) New Jersey goes back decades.
And many, many people don't live in those most expensive cities. There probably is an increasing concentration in some industries. But there's often a choice nonetheless.
The big difference between this and communist living of their parents generation could be summed up in one word "hope". They live in crappy communal living nearly identical to what their parents had but for them it is temporary just until they get their big break or their startup takes off. They all dream of living in a mansion when they get rich so they have hope. For their parents the government assigned apartment was the end of the line, there was no hope of getting a better place and you just lived with it and most people hated it. So when you choose to live this way you have the choice to leave, even though you most likely wont, but it is that choice that makes it so much better
68 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 117 ms ] threadIt's not like I just think it would be optimal to share a kitchen or bulk meals and maybe actually talk to my neighbors.
Living in tiny isolated groups is the American dream.
I didn't buy a house because I wanted a place to myself; I bought a house because I wanted to have enough space to have people over for dinner and throw parties. A house big enough for that is too big for just me, so I share it with friends. Much better than all of us living separately in apartments, or (ugh!) in entire separate houses.
Communal living is very good but I'd much prefer the "American" version where its essentially 3-5 roommates I can trust than a much larger version like in the article.
Your living arrangements are what you make of it. I've lived in a 4000 sq foot home in the suburbs, and I've lived in a condo in a major metro (Chicago).
Nuts to possessions and competing on living space, I just want to spend time with good people.
This!
Your idea is awesome. But why restrict only to tech workers? At the least, you could let all digital workers stay?
The second problem is when you're at least somewhat introverted. There comes a time when I no longer want to spend time with people, even if they're good.
I think we Americans will soon see the multi-generational household as more the norm, especially with the high cost of care for our elderly.
Over the last 20ish years I have gone from dorm life to living with a roommate to living with a girlfriend to living alone to renting a room in a house (twice) to living with a girlfriend to getting married to said girlfriend.
So many people don't even use a kitchen so I can see where being able to live very cheaply with the bare essentials can be very attractive to many.
Secondly (this is more a theory), having a roomie is often just too informal to settle on and enforce social contracts for public spaces.
Yeah man, I'll clean the dishes. (Never cleans the dishes).
Although in college, I used to have the apartment where people just showed up randomly and chilled / did homework / played a game for 10 mins and leave (or crash on the couch). They'd help clean the place, were free to leave some food in the fridge and such and were generally very respectful. Donate an N64 or a sound system to the cause.Turned out my roomie hated it and never said anything, but it worked well for me. I just don't like it when people feel like a 'guest' or I'm treated like a 'guest'. It's uncomfortable.
Nowadays it's rude (and time consuming) to just drop by and I rarely see my friends on weekdays. Then they offer me drinks and such and theres a weird formaility to it that I don't enjoy at all. I think we need a 'third place', effectively a community hangout where everyone feels they have some sort of shared ownership and you can also expect people to be there regularly. The closest example I've found is our local hackerspace, but the audience for that is somewhat limited.
Guess I'm only getting exposed to the Chinese 1%, so thanks for this article.
That's probably part of it. Of course, to extrapolate large trends such as 'China's Millennials are happy to own nothing' based on 5000 or so people without looking into their ability to own things would be just as silly an sweeping generalization to make.
Only stuff I've bought in the past half decade is maybe like a few t shirts and socks/underwear. Everything else lasts.
Absolutely no clue what you wear for $100 in the Winter. Summer I can understand. I guess it's the boots/jackets that really change the price as 3 piece summer outfits I agree should be below 100.
You need to wait for special deals.
A 400$ jacked can go for as low as 90$ if the season is over and you buy a winter jacket of last years collection in april.
Glasses are cheaper to buy 10$ a year insurance that replace at any physical damage than to buy expensive – 190$ once, plus 10$ a year. (but I won’t count glasses for outfit, as that’s stupid – glasses are a disability tool, and I say that as someone who is short sighted).
Sweater for 50 is far overpriced, look more in the direction of 10. Pants are normal, though. I’d even say a good jeans is more like 80$.
Those prices already are cheap. That's a $40/year jacket. I mean I guess I could hunt and wait for deals but I don't have the brainpower to track yet another "thing" you know? I only spent a few hundred on clothing in the past decade with the majority of my main purchases being at the start of the decade. Shaving off $50 here and there from that would do virtually nothing for me. If you shop frequently then by all means hunt for deals but I wear the exact same thing every single day (this is where I makeup the money I lost on expensive items by not getting them on sale).
Please don't pretend like the prices that you are posting are in any way normal. Fit, quality, and style are greatly sacrificed for price. I can't even remember the last time I saw a $10 t-shirt that wasn't on sale or clearance.
And, even when dressing with style, you are just burning money.
Where do you live? There's no way you live in the modern world if you think $10/sweater is a regular price for something because that's absolutely insane. Do you only wear 90's crewnecks? I can see those being $10 at the local goodwill. If you do then why are you trying so extremely hard to find the lowest prices possible? Are you living in poverty?
Buy during sale at H&M, C&A, Vero Moda, etc. Normal clothes.
Normal people don’t have money to buy bags for $2k. Normal people are struggling to pay their bills while being a single mom with kids. Normal people can be lucky if they can afford clothes from ALDI, and don’t have to go to the Red Cross. That’s the reality for most of the former middle class.
My family luckily doesn’t have to live like that, but you are seriously not "normal person". You’re rich. Your friends are rich.
When your friends buy bags that are over twice the monthly salary of some people, bags that cost more than a vacation for 4 people in another country, then you are rich.
Some people, living on uncommonly-high tech salaries in the bay area and similar locations, might indeed spend $1K on a change of clothes. I imagine some other highly-educated professionals in expensive cities might do as well. There is nothing wrong or unreasonable with that, per se. But "$1000 outfit is standard" is a statement that applies to very few people, and implying that it should be the norm is absurd under present world economics.
For the record, in my experience, most people I meet in tech and in the bay area, still won't often get close to wearing $1k. Those who do is often only when you include things like prescription glasses, leather jackets and wearable gadgets ;)
Still, you can get a good outfit for below 200€. Watch not included, as everyone has a smart phone anyway.
I bought my winter jacket, from the 2014 collection, in April 2015. Factory sale at Elkline.
Jeans are normal price, boots, same – bought in march 2015 – again saving a lot.
You are just wasting money by not taking advantage of seasonal sales.
I originally typed $1500-2000... I see a lot of Thom Browne stuff here, and that means $350 for a button up, $1000 for shoes. But it's probably a minority still, and you can't tell how much shoes/boots cost without knowing the brand (though I've seen some Rick Owens sneakers).
Edit: Saw you mentioned winter. Yeah that drives my number up. My $1000 was based on fall/spring type of stuff.
I don’t think the struggles of normal people, or the fact that people have to save money, are understood by someone like him.
EDIT: I don’t usually read through comment histories, but here it’s to provide a context, not to judge the person, and these earlier comments from him, a few weeks ago, harden my belief: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10288459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10124135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10049439 although this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9195212 goes in the other direction.
I'm sure I've never worn a $1000 outfit in my life, and that includes a made-to-measure three-piece suit.
"Honestly, [$1000] is cheap as fuck. Have you met a regular person? Regular people go shopping every week for different shit, its unbelievable. I have friends that buy bags for $2k each, hats for $200, etc. Just because I literally only bought a few sweaters, a jacket, and boots a decade ago does not in any way make me inefficient. I am also not burning money by buying $50 sweaters." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10673865
Ah, so rising rent and stagnant wages are causing reduction in lifestyle among the youthful. The article could be shortened to "people have less money, so they are forced to make do with less." There are many discussions about these cultural memes spawned by downward economic trends; some items are useful (sharing a power tool instead of purchasing), but they're the result of funding being constrained and people's expectations adjusting downward as a result. These people are not sworn to poverty, so I doubt they are actually happy to own nothing, so much as grudgingly adapting to owning less than their parents.
EDIT: Communes can make a comeback gracefully as part of this economic trend, but it's still important to understand that generations losing wealth isn't a positive thing.
This is a very common phenomenon with statistics... for example I frequently come across people citing that x time in history had early death rates - so you likely wouldn't have lived past 40 - without explaining the majority of deaths were due to infant death from disease. But if they in fact made it past early childhood then those projected maximum age numbers were not relevant.
This is why it's important to not plan based on global averages. One reason why conducting "cohort analysis" is very important in business analytics.
People nowdays can afford to buy a new smartphone every year, but they can only afford to live in a tiny capsule far far away from their work and social life.
This is not healthy.
I think it's a very positive thing. The idea that you can rely on wealth is rapidly becoming antiquated, and this strikes me as excellent preparation for a lifestyle where you might lose everything.
I would characterise the fact that the current generation growing up will be worse than their parents as the greatest tragedy of the last decade.
Time and time again I've been hearing baby boomers complaining about how young people today aren't "working hard enough" along with them being "so entitled" and pointing to Zuckerberg and random stories about kids selling start-ups for millions as if these are all somehow available to them and that they're being turned stupid by technology instead of "hard work" (this is fairly standard rhetoric not just for conservatives of the generation but even fairly moderate folks in my own experience at least). Then they tend to talk about how hard they worked when they left high school, bought a house, and lived well while saving judiciously similar to the lifestyle choices made in the Millionaire Next Door book.
Setting up a generation with unrealistic economic expectations is perhaps one of the biggest double edged swords the US has wielded in its history. Great for positive energy and all, but perhaps it wasn't entirely a net positive across several generations.
Is it smart to be frugal and live within your means? Absolutely. But being forced to be frugal because my boss is keeping more and more of what should be my money is a scam.
Why not? It's the next step after "brogrammers".
I'm sure if you offered any, if not most, of these people a winning lottery ticket of great fortune they'll surely take it.
This goes for millennials here as well. Just cause they're settling for living in mom's basement doesn't mean they wouldn't rather own their home and their own car. It just happens that living at mom's beats living on the park bench.
The thing is there's two kinds of people: those who will stay in their comfort zone, and those who see want more out of life and will raise hell to get what they want.
Just cause these millennials don't raise hell doesn't necessarily mean they're happy. They're just content enough.
"For as little as about $500 a month, You+ residents gain access to a private room with a bathroom"
Whoa whoa, for $500 a month, I imagine you could rent a full apartment mostly anywhere in China, could not you?
Sounds like a very expensive way to own nothing.
Having said that, sharing apartments is all rage where I live. It's cheaper to rent 3 bedroom apartment and divide the price between 3-6 people than renting one bedroom flat for yourself only. In places where housing is expensive this saves young people without stellar paychecks. Company is also nice when you get to choose who to live with.
Now that sounds totally overpriced. Is Beijing such an expensive city already?
"9m² apartment in a suburban house, on the attic – 150€/month, time limited offer of 3 months".
"11m² apartment subsidized by government, kitchen and bathroom shared with 30 other apartments, 350€/month"
Housing just is expensive.
In both the U.S. and China the economy is growing, but a greater and greater percentage of those gains go to the owners of capital. Instead of demanding a higher percentage of the product of our labor, we're content to take what we're given and downgrade our expectations.
I am a "highly paid" software engineer who works in San Francisco. Plugging in 30% of my take-home pay into Craigslist yields an anemic, depressing list of available properties. So instead of getting ripped off by some scumbag landlord, I built a tiny house in someone's back yard.
If I could afford it, I would rent something nice, or even buy a house, but even with my 6-figure salary, it's not possible. And this is a scam.
My generation, even those of us that are getting the best deal going under Capitalism, are getting ripped off. and it's time we started talking about it that way instead of pretending like we're "living with less" because of some moral or ethical or lifestyle imperative.
And I should be clear -- I think Americans can stand to live with less, I think that co-housing is a legitimate option and I'd choose it if it were available to me. I also think that Americans should be seeing the benefit of increased worker productivity in their compensation, instead of 100% of that productivity increase flowing to the owners of capital.
Frankly I don't want to live that way. And I'm on my way to not to.
And many, many people don't live in those most expensive cities. There probably is an increasing concentration in some industries. But there's often a choice nonetheless.