Think about how harsh that is, even if we live a life of austerity, income inequality is still so vast that we still won't be able to live a better life later. And the cherry on top is that despite living a life of relative austerity, a ridiculously rich person accuses us of frivolous spending.
They seem to be spending less (percentage wise) than the previous generation[1]. I can understand why some people would be upset if they were told, "Even though you're spending less than I did on luxuries, you're still spending too much." Particularly when they are told that getting a sandwich for lunch is a luxury they can't afford.
[1] https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/millennial-boomer-spendi...
Even at $8, that's on par with a pint of beer at a bar in SF.
What a life of frivolous luxury.
https://www.thecut.com/2014/06/biggest-food-clich-on-instagr...
One of the tweets linked here is this https://twitter.com/nickconfessore/status/864192842817839104
He's making it seem like saving $50 a week to end up with $33K is some kind of impractical absurdity. $33K is a long way towards a down payment on a house in most of the country. AND THAT'S JUST HIS AVOCADO TOAST BUDGET! Cut out the $8 beers and $4 lattes from Starbucks, get married and combine your wealth with your new wife and guess what, you can afford a house. In the SF Bay Area? No, probably not. But believe it or not, there is a world outside the 64 square miles of SF.
On a serious note, if you're talking about houses, then house prices should increase as well in that time, assuming inflationary forces keep up.
4-6% inflation adjusted return is not unreasonable or amazing.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-historical-return-of-real-...
"So far this decade, the U.S. stock market is ahead once again. And for the past 40 years, it would have earned you almost 4 times as much as U.S. residential real estate."
The point is, you can save a lot of money by making smart choices instead of blaming baby boomers.
I'm not complaining out of personal bitterness. I live somewhere somewhat less expensive than SF and have been relatively lucky on most of those points and have lived frugally and so am fairly well on track to be able to buy something by my early thirties. However, this is not a sustainable way to run a society. When even people who are among the luckiest and most privileged 20% of people have to scrimp and save to get something basic like a 1000 sq ft condo and the other 80% has no hope at all of ever getting that, something is seriously wrong.
And yeah if you can't earn enough then you should move. It's not a big deal. Sorry that money is a thing and that real estate has varying prices in different geographics areas causing you to have to make this decision. So sorry.
The failure to ensure that basic needs like housing are available at prices that are affordable to average people is a clear and unforgivable failure by policy makers.
> We are living in the richest and most technologically advanced civilization ever to have existed.
That's always true at any given moment in time. 100 years ago, someone was living in the most technologically advanced civilization but they still had to budget. We're not in star trek the next generation yet.
And given that this is a democracy, yes, we are entitled to have a government that operates for our benefit. That is not too much to ask.
This may be true, but it is not why they can't afford housing. It is a red herring, that you seem to have fallen for. It ignores the fact of how expensive housing in some areas has become.