Few milestones in life mean as much to the American Dream as owning a home. And millennials have encountered the kind of trouble totally befitting their generation, which largely graduated into the teeth of the disastrous post-2008 job market. Just as they entered peak homebuying and household formation age, housing affordability is at 40-year lows, and mortgage rates are near 40-year highs.
The anxiety this generation feels about the prospect of never owning their own home affects their entire perception of their finances and the economy, says Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi.
“If they feel like they’re locked out of owning a home it colors their perceptions about everything else going on in their financial lives,” Zandi says.
Millennials have long been dogged by a brutal housing market. They faced not one, but two, cataclysmic economic events—the Great Financial Crisis in 2008 and the pandemic in 2020. Both of which left them reeling financially and struggling to afford a home. The Great Recession decimated the real estate market as the economy nearly collapsed under the weight of tenuous mortgage backed securities. While the pandemic brought with it a remote work boom that caused millions of citydwellers to flee to the suburbs, sending housing prices soaring.
Missing the other big factor:
There’s a large quantity of influencers profiting off of doomsaying and convincing millennial they can’t afford homes with bad math and bogus statistics. They churn out clickbait content with unfounded claims, purposefully designed to rile up viewers and drive engagement.
This of course applies to many topics, housing affordability just being one, that turns out drive big engagement by spreading disinformation.
It’s actively profitable to lie on the internet nowadays, so lots of my fellow millennials have an extremely soured and warped perspective of reality, because if you keep getting told lies by enough different random strangers on the internet on a topic you aren’t familiar with, you’ll start to believe it.
Spreading disinformation, especially about serious topics like economics, medicine, politics, religion, etc, needs to be cracked down on more. Posing as a professional online and spreading damaging info on purpose should result in jail time imo.
It’s so much more than that though, imho.
For one thing, it’s not merely people “posing” as professionals - i.e. those who have no credentials to show - but the actual professionals themselves who are often the source of misinformation. Remember when Trump told people to drink bleach (and then two guys in Kansas literally did precisely that)? He also told people that sunlight can destroy the virus - I know people irl who when they got sick, they went outside to sunbathe… in the dead of winter, in sub-freezing temperatures.
For another, there are charts & graphs of news media outlets from before being bought out by billionaires vs. after that, which conclusively prove that the name of the buyer is mentioned drastically less often (and most especially in a negative context) after that purchase compared to before it. If “reporters” - the literal card-carrying members of this establishment - cannot be trusted to tell the news, then who can?
To become TRULY informed about something… takes many, MANY years. When I was a kid, I believed in trickle-down economics, because that’s what I was told. I even voted based on that. Many people still do believe it, but not in spite of listening to their news organization of choice, and rather b/c of it.
I upvoted your comment bc I think it adds value to the conversation, but ultimately I disagree with your ending sentence: it seems far more likely that those who speak out against “the establishment” will end up in jail, thus turning that into one more tool for those who speak “untruths” to remain in political power, than for the reverse to happen.
My latter statement needs to legally be specifically limited to disinformation on specific topics. Posing as a doctor and giving faje health advice, posing as an investor, etc.
Will it cover all disinformation sources? God no, you are 100% right that major news outlets are a captured market now.
But cracking down on some disinformation is better than nothing.
During Covid 2020, there was a study that found the vast majority of disinformation could be sourced back to like, I want to say it was like a total of only a couple dozen specific people? Like a small handful of trolls basically could be blamed for a huge amount of disinformation. Some of them profited off it.
I think cracking down on the “source” points of bullshit could be a good starting point to at least taking a very large chunk out of the problem.
(100 bucks says many times it will be found to be Russian or Chinese actors at play in one way or another)
Aren’t the things that you describe "already* illegal? Not that rich white people ever face any consequences for things these days, but… even so, aren’t there technically laws in place for that already? “Fraud” for one.
Which illustrates that regardless of Right or Wrong, a thing that is not enforced is basically not a thing at all - a mere suggestion that people can feel free to ignore, especially if their finances depend on them doing so.
Whereas conversely, that same issue in reverse, let’s call it Wrong or Right, if it receives oh let’s say Congressional backing, receives legal protections. At worst, imagine someone doing a crime, then immediately receiving a Presidential pardon, was it really a “crime” then? (Yes, obviously, but… is it though? Not by all definitions of that word.)
So you are right, but naive: “misinformation” is not something that you or I get to define, but rather those in power do, hence they will twist and pervert it to suit their own ends.
I see that you are trying to avoid the “politics” surrounding the topic and trying to discuss it in isolation or that, but that is simply not how the world of humans has ever worked, at any point in our existence. Like, at best that only works when all sides are participating in a “good faith” effort to arrive at The Truth - and yes, under those conditions what you said is an effective means, e.g. a doctor who gives bad advice regardless of the criminal court system can lose their medical license that is governed independently - but the problem is that wherever politics gets involved, we can no longer depend on people acting in good faith anymore.:-(
“Fraud” for one.
Fraud doesn’t necessarily cover socialed7a as you aren’t selling a product or directly profiting off a service you are selling, so it’s a gray area.
You can have multiple layers of abstraction between the disinformation and actual income stream with social media influencers, which heavily muddies the water.
But at this time, AFAIK no… it’s not illegal in the US to cosplay in medical outfit and say random shit on Instagram.
“misinformation” is not something that you or I get to define
They are defined, and we are talking about disinformation, not misinformation.
Disinformation is the purposeful spreading of factually incorrect info willfully and knowing it’s wrong.
Misinformation is the same but not knowing it’s wrong, basically “on accident” or because you genuinely think it’s the truth.
For disinformation to be legally acted on it would be up to the prosecutor to prove without a shadow of doubt that the defendant knew the info was wrong and benefited from still spreading it.
Which you can guess is very difficult to price, you’d need effectively to convince a jury that the person didn’t truly think they were right.
There are already precedents for this, as there is a type of disinformation that is illegal right now, and that is Libel.
The Depp v. Heard case was a well published example of this. The prosecters had to effectively prove that Heard truly knew she was lying and benefited from that lie, and acted to deceive. An extremely high bar to prove.
But they had evidence photos of her clearly doctoring photos, testimony of witnesses that went against her accounts, text messages, etc.
So it’s a high bar but not an impossible bar.
The same would be the bar for making “professional disinformation” illegal. You’d need to prove the person knew they were lying, which is very tough but not impossible (you’d be surprised how often these idiots just admit to it outright)
I don’t think this is as important as your making it out to be because it’s not far off from the truth for many. The reality is that a condemned or empty lot in my area starts at 6 times my annual salary. To get something that can be lived in starts around 9 times. That means I need at about a year’s salary to afford the land alone. To be able to live on that lot is closer to 2 years salary. Realistically this won’t happen because the rent in the area is 60% of my income and after required expenses like fuel, insurance, food, etc I can usually save about 5% of my income. Any unforeseen expenses like car repairs eat that away, so I’m left with an annual savings rate of about 3%. At this rate homes will inflate faster than my income will accrue. The math doesn’t work and I suspect it doesn’t for many others.
So, you live in a place that the local area has exceptionally high cost of living…
Why would you want to buy a home specifically there?
If you can’t afford the cost of living in a location, that just means you have to move somewhere you can.
Which usually just means moving to the suburbs or 1 town over and suddenly the price is 1/10th.
You’re mistaken, I already live 45 minutes from my job. Moving further from that would be untenable because it would increase my commute by another 30 minutes which wouldn’t leave enough time for me to care for my father in the area.
me to care for my father
That’s your choice to make then.
Moving is an option, you are prioritizing your father’s comfort over your own life.
You can do that, but no one us forcing you to.
You can tell your dad “look I’m leaving, I can’t afford it here. You can come with me or not, but I have my own life to live and this place is killing me”
If he doesn’t come with you, then that’s on him.
He is a grown ass man, you aren’t his parent…
Often I see this case, if you purposefully choose to shackle yourself to a relative, that’s no longer "the economy"s fault you can’t afford life. You made a choice to live outside your means, and that choice has consequences.
You always have the option to leave and most if the time if push came to shove, your relative will cave and follow.
Of not, you aren’t responsible for them, stop lighting yourself on fire to keep someone else warm.
That’s a lot of psychopathic assumptions I’m just going to pretend you didn’t say. The point is the reality for most is dire and your clearly more interested in winning the conversation than understanding those shitheads on social media are only getting views because they are validating real problems in the economy.
I’m just going to pretend you didn’t say
That’s easier than confronting reality.
Man you just keep finding new and inventive ways to continuously prove how much of a dick you are in this thread.
It’s a fundamental truth. Children feeling compelled to care for their parents is purely their choice.
I never said it was a bad choice, but it is a choice.
But if you do make that choice, it has consequences.
The concept of children “owing” their parents their lives is anachronistic and ignores the fact the parent chose to have them.
Any parent that feels their children owe taking care of the parent in their older age is an asshole, period. A parent that raised their child well should produce a child that wants to help their parent out of love, not a feeling of owed necessary.
The former is family and love, the latter is narcissistic parents that think they “own” their child.
BUT a child shouldn’t be killing themselves to take care of their parent. Any parent that actually loves their child would never ask their child to give up their own life to suit the parents comfort.
A good parent will do whatever it takes to support their child, and if that means leaving their old life behind to move (with their child) somewhere more affordable so the child can actually afford to take care of them, that shouldn’t even be a tough question for the parent to answer, it should be an instant “yes, if you are sure you want to do that I’ll support your decision”
Parents that compel their children to live outside their means just because they won’t move with them somewhere in their means because they dont want to leave their old home behind are shitty parents, period
Parents should never be prioritizing their own comfort at the cost of their children’s success in life. If you do that, you were never fit to have a child.
The concept of children “owing” their parents their lives is anachronistic and ignores the fact the parent chose to have them.
We get it. Your parents were shit to you, so the concept of loving and being loved is foreign and unheard to you. People choose to care for their parents because they love them, ya dink.
Holy shit dude. You are an actual psychopath aren’t you? Fucking Ebenezer Scrooge pre ghostly trio levels of heartless.
Fucking hell…
See my write up in detail here, hopefully it helps shed more light on my point:
Heeeeellllll no. Seen enough that I am not touching that with a ten foot pole. I value my mental health more than that.
Lol warped perspective? Millennials are the poorest working generation since the great depression. Millennials, the largest working generation ever in America only hold ~3% of the wealth. Our parents at the same age owned ~30%. So Ya shut up
Case in point, lol
What point exactly?
