- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Do young people have it harder today? Did Boomers ruin everything?
Posted on 12/7/25 at 11:03 pm to TigerJack8
Posted on 12/7/25 at 11:03 pm to TigerJack8
quote:
So if you have a wife and children, for your first house it should be in a crime ridden area, just because it’s your first home?
People shouldn’t be forced to live in crime ridden areas just because they’re purchasing a first home. That makes no sense.
No one if forcing them to buy a home in a crime-ridden area. If that's all they can afford and they don't like it, don't buy it.
0
Posted on 12/7/25 at 11:03 pm to TigerJack8
quote:
People shouldn’t be forced to live in crime ridden areas just because they’re purchasing a first home. That makes no sense.
And this is the language that betrays the entitlement.
Nobody is "forcing" anyone to do anything, you child.
That's problem one.
Problem two is that you are presenting a false dilemma. Of course there are affordable starter homes in areas that are not crime ridden. I completely reject that assumption/embedded premise. I understand that you were responding to the poster who said everyone he knew bought a "shithole" as their first house, but I still reject the premise.
Problem three is that your choices drive all of these conclusions (see Problem One again).
This post was edited on 12/7/25 at 11:07 pm
Posted on 12/8/25 at 1:05 am to wackatimesthree
I was indeed responding to that one poster saying thats how they were to get a starter home.
The context is that people aren’t going to settle for the more affordable homes if it’s not safe for the family. There is no forcing, I was making a point to his post.
The context is that people aren’t going to settle for the more affordable homes if it’s not safe for the family. There is no forcing, I was making a point to his post.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 4:07 am to Tigahs24Seven
quote:There isn't a Gen Z alive in their early thirties. They cap out at 28. While your stereotype might typify Gen Y, the word is still out on Gen Z. Heck, a third of Gen Z are still minors.
Not getting married until you're in your late twenties/early thirties, because you want to just have fun and blow money daily on 10.00 cups of coffee,
Posted on 12/8/25 at 4:37 am to TigerJack8
quote:Should be? Nah.
So if you have a wife and children, for your first house it should be in a crime ridden area, just because it’s your first home?
But if the choice is breaking the bank on rent vs affordability in a lesser neighborhood the stereotypes you're addressing would head in opposite directions. Given those choices, young boomers would no more have considered the high rent place than millennials would consider the not-so-nice neighborhood now.
Boomers' focus would have been on the bank account.
Millennials' focus would be on the social media look.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 10:16 am to TigerJack8
quote:
I was indeed responding to that one poster saying thats how they were to get a starter home.
Yes, I acknowledged that.
quote:
The context is that people aren’t going to settle for the more affordable homes if it’s not safe for the family. There is no forcing, I was making a point to his post.
Fair enough, but I'm still confused by the text below:
quote:
The context is that people aren’t going to settle for the more affordable homes if it’s not safe for the family. There is no forcing, I was making a point to his post.
On one hand it seems like you are leaning into the idea that families have no choices other than to buy a home in a dangerous area or not buy one.
On the other hand it seems like you are challenging that premise.
I reject that premise entirely. Whether we invoke force or not. I realize that real estate varies widely depending upon location and in some locales that dilemma might be true. I have no idea, for example, how anybody that makes less than about half a mil a year affords to live in San Fransisco or Manhattan.
However, no one is forcing anyone to live in San Fransisco or Manhattan.
I can demonstrate many places in the United States where starter homes in relatively safe neighborhoods are within reach of a household income of, say, 80 or 90k.
Children may have to share bedrooms. There might not be as many bathrooms as would be ideal. It might not be the hippest place in America. Parents might want to look into homeschooling or private schooling.
But that's my point.
Today's young person thinks they are entitled to have all of the above features and if they can't afford a house that provides ALL of them, then something is wrong with the system, they cry. It's the damn Boomer's fault.
It never occurs to them that the very fact that demand stays so high is what is driving prices up. If they would reduce their expectations and not think they had to have EXACTLY what they were looking for, prices would come down. If not on new construction, certainly for older homes.
Maybe they need to live in a different state. In a small town instead of a metro area. Maybe kids need to double up on bedrooms. Maybe they shouldn't be expecting the state to educate their children and should consider taking on that responsibility themselves.
"But but, but, people shouldn't have to do those things just to be able to afford a house!"
Why not? My parents did. They made those kids of choices. They didn't buy a house until dad was 40 and mom was 39. Until then we lived in a rented 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom (yep, one bathroom) house that couldn't have been more than 1200-1300 square feet. For four people for most of the time we lived there, five by the time we moved out.
They bought a house with the potential for a lot more livable square footage (there was a large but unfinished basement), and gradually finished it as they could afford to. By the time it was all finished down there with a functioning bathroom, etc. they were probably 47-48 years old.
And people have been moving away from high real estate areas for forever. California to Arizona and Colorado. People from all over the northeast to Atlanta. That's been happening for decades.
I knew people in one community growing up in which the public school system was really terrible who chose to live in mobile homes and send their kids to private school rather than send them to public school and buy a brick and mortar house.
People have always made those sorts of choices. Young people just don't know that they have.
"But I have to be in a certain area for work!" O.k. You knew that when you chose that career path, or you should have, anyway. It's still a function of your choices.
And it's probably not true anyway. Smaller towns and rural communities are experiencing a serious shortage of professionals and skilled tradesmen in all kinds of various fields, because they all want to live in Hipsterville rather than Slapout.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:52 am to Penrod
Possibly but not for those reasons given.
They have been convinced they need degrees, and government taking over college loans created an explosion in costs. Many of them have drowned themselves in debt getting meaningless degrees in fields that aren't in demand.
Coupled with this, many of the younger gens feel entitled to higher wage jobs right out of school which isn't usually feasible. Many of them feel like entry-level work is beneath them and trying to shortcut the line into a corporate job is a poor choice more often than not.
Boomers were a lot more willing to work a lot harder to get to where they wanted to be career wise, without degrees.
They have been convinced they need degrees, and government taking over college loans created an explosion in costs. Many of them have drowned themselves in debt getting meaningless degrees in fields that aren't in demand.
Coupled with this, many of the younger gens feel entitled to higher wage jobs right out of school which isn't usually feasible. Many of them feel like entry-level work is beneath them and trying to shortcut the line into a corporate job is a poor choice more often than not.
Boomers were a lot more willing to work a lot harder to get to where they wanted to be career wise, without degrees.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 6:23 pm to Penrod
Non-boomers are so weak, just all around weak.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:52 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
quote:Looking to buy their first home
In this market they might be better off waiting a year or so.
Yes
I told her that
They are ready to have children
Life complicates things lol!
So her and her husband are both graduates
Both money making professionals just out of college for two years
Enjoying life
Doing everything the right way
Saving and investing
Something is very wrong if they can’t buy a good house
It’s house prices, taxes, and insurance
I really think insurance is out of control
Both home, car, and medical
That needs to be fixed
And thank you for your advice.
She won’t listen to me! Lol
Page 14 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News