Millennials constantly lament the high cost of living and the fact that so-called "American dream" is out of reach for many of them. Housing prices have skyrocketed, as has the cost of a college education. Eating out has gotten drastically more expensive, and making food at home with fresh groceries is hardly any cheaper. It's just so hard, they say, to get a foothold in the modern economy. Boomers, who grew up in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, however, aren't wasting any sympathy tears.One of the big talking points in the great American millennials versus baby boomers debate is that, yes, things are more expensive; but has the younger generation has knee-capped itself by its lavish spending habits that have prevented them from owning homes? If millennials stopped buying $14 avocado toast and $1,000 iPhones, would they be able to save enough for a down payment on a modest house?Freddie Smith, 36, of Orlando, Florida, recently went viral on TikTok for a video in which he challenged the boomer argument with statistics from the Bureau of Labor, Federal Reserve, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Smith believes that the older generations misunderstand millennial finances because their concept of luxury is based on 1980s economics. That's when most boomers were coming of age and buying their own family homes, and their ideas of saving up for a down payment and affording a monthly mortgage are heavily outdated.Smith says that for baby boomers, essentials such as rent and child care were much more affordable, but items considered luxuries (TVs, CD players, computers) were much more expensive. See on Instagram How is the economy different for millennials than it was for baby boomers?"The main shift is that core essentials—housing, education, healthcare, and even food—have become more expensive," Smith said. "Housing and rent, for instance, now outpace wage growth, making homeownership feel unattainable for many. The cost of childcare has also skyrocketed, and food prices have increased.”The home price to income ratio is currently at an all-time high. The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University writes, "In 2022, the median sale price for a single-family home in the US was 5.6 times higher than the median household income, higher than at any point on record dating back to the early 1970s." That ratio was closer to 2.5 in 1980. Even transportation has skyrocketed. Buying a new car now costs about as much as the median yearly salary, with entry-level vehicles disappearing rapidly and being replaced with high-tech, fuel-efficient offerings. "As a result, I think older generations have a different perspective on luxury versus necessity,” Smith continued. “They grew up in a time when hard work typically led to financial stability, whereas today, even with hard work, many people struggle with the high costs of housing, rent and medical expenses. Basic survival used to be far more affordable, allowing people more financial room to build a stable life." - YouTube www.youtube.com Smith’s numbers don’t lie. For a person in the '80s to own three TVs, a CD player, a cellphone, a microwave, and a computer, it would cost them 3.5 years of rent or a 20% downpayment on the average home. So, it was irresponsible for someone in that period to purchase all of what was known then as luxuries. However, for millennials, these "fancy toys" are a lot more affordable compared to the big ticket items of housing, childcare, and college education. Skimping out on them won't make a meaningful difference in the attempt to save up the massive amount of cash required for a down payment on a modern home. To wit:"But if you skip that daily $6 Starbucks drink, you’ll have enough for the downpayment in 29.22 years," Yokahana joked in the comments. "I hate that housing and transportation have become luxuries," Molly added. "Imagine spending 3x your rent on a microwave," Donutdisaster wrote.Older people may see millennials with multiple TVs in their home, along with iPhones and tablets, and think that money could be better saved up in service of the "American dream." But the truth is that those savings won't really help, and worse, they'll make life pretty unenjoyable in the meantime!Why are luxury goods more affordable now than they were in the '80s?The price of manufactured goods has steadily fallen over the last few decades due to technological improvements and trade policies that have allowed the U.S. to import goods from places where labor costs are cheaper. "International, global competition lowers prices directly from lower-cost imported goods, and indirectly by forcing U.S. manufacturers to behave more competitively, with lower prices, higher quality, better service, et cetera," Sociologist Joseph Cohen of Queens University said, according to Providence Journal.Even as recently as the early 2000s, a high-quality TV was likely to cost over $1,000. Nowadays you can get an equivalent, or better, television set for just a few hundred bucks. See on Instagram Why are housing prices so high?Housing prices in the US have soared due to the low inventory caused by the Great Recession, mortgage rates, and zoning laws that make building more challenging. Rents have increased considerably since the pandemic due to low inventory, inflation, barriers to home ownership, and the fact that more people want to live alone than with a roommate or romantic partner.Smith’s breakdown of the economic changes over the past two generations makes a strong case for the idea that millennial financial troubles have more to do with systemic problems than spending habits. The boomers got a bad deal regarding luxury items, and the millennials with necessities. Wouldn’t living in a world where both were affordable in the same era be great?This article originally appeared in February. It has been updated.

Who can take the accolade? The post Who was the first-ever blues guitarist? first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Beyond the traditional rock and roll. The post The artist that made Jeff Lynne move rock forward: “There was so much going on” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Not wanting to reach the top too fast. The post The Eagles album Don Henley didn’t want to get too big: “Why me” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Everything you want in a singer. The post The one artist Elton John thought could sing anything: “It sounds good” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

That punkass attitude. The post The artist Lars Ulrich called the spirit of rock and roll: “He was the guy” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Celebrated pioneers. The post Who was the first female rock star to get a number one song? first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

The series aired its finale ... and then there were four more episodes.

The Supreme Court decided over 30 cases during June — cases that supported federalism, parental rights, voting rights, and much more. (RELATED: No Online Porn for Kids? Supreme Court Is OK With That) Join The Spectacle Podcast hosts Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay as they discuss various Supreme Court cases that were decided in June. Melissa and Scott highlight Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s rebuke of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissenting opinion in Trump v. CASA and Jackson’s overall incompetence as a judge. They also discuss decisions that protect minors from the LGBTQ+ ideology, such as United States v. Skrmetti and Mahmoud v. Taylor. Melissa and Scott also discuss a potential case involving Louisiana’s redistricting map, which has potential implications for voting rights. (READ MORE: Supreme Court Saves Religious Parents From Radical LGBTQ Indoctrination of Their Children)  Tune in to hear their discussion!  Listen to The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Spotify. Watch The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Rumble.  The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

Dr. Philip Dormitzer, former global head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, has been subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee as it investigates Pfizer’s alleged delay in the release of COVID vaccine information. It is alleged that senior officials at Pfizer withheld positive trials concerning the COVID vaccine for political purposes, only releasing it after Joe Biden had been elected. Dormitzer worked for GSK, a global pharmaceutical company, after his career with Pfizer. The committee discovered that Dormitzer allegedly admitted to Pfizer’s dishonest practices relating to the timing of vaccine testing by way of a Wall Street Journal article published in March. According to the article, Dormitzer alleged that, in order to affect the election results, Pfizer delayed its announcement of positive test results of the COVID vaccine. By slowing down the testing process, positive results were allegedly withheld from the public so that credit would be redirected from President Trump for the vaccine’s success.   GSK alleges that in a meeting to discuss his relocation, Dormitzer requested that he be moved to Canada. Dormitzer, according to GSK officials, appeared fearful that the Trump administration would investigate him for his involvement in Pfizer’s development of the COVID-19 vaccine. After receiving this information, the committee reached out to GSK, which doubled down on its initial claims. Reportedly, Dormitzer said that the timing of the vaccine was not a coincidence, and that “‘the three most senior people in Pfizer R&D were involved in a decision to deliberately slow down clinical testing’” to influence the outcome of the 2020 election. After compounding these claims with other evidence, the Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Dormitzer on March 15, requesting specific documentation pertaining to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine work alongside a transcribed interview. Dormitzer has since denied GSK’s allegations against him. Additionally, the scientist failed to comply with the committee’s request for documentation and an interview transcription. His decision to deny their initial request prompted the committee to issue a subpoena on June 30 claiming that Dormitzer’s participation is key to the investigation. According to the subpoena, Dormitzer’s attorney, Susan Brune, answered the committee’s initial request on May 29. Brune informed the committee that Dormitzer would not participate in an interview and failed to produce the requested documents. Any further information that the committee was seeking, Brune posited, could be gathered from Pfizer. The committee has said it is unwilling to accept Dormitzer’s refusal to testify. In the letter included with the subpoena notice, Chairman Jim Jordan wrote, “Based off the information we have obtained to date, the Committee believes [Dormitzer’s] testimony is critical… the Committee’s request to Pfizer is separate and unique from the Committee’s request to [Dormtizer].” Jordan went on to explain the severity of accusations against Dormitzer and other senior officials at Pfizer. Due to the potential impact of the alleged actions on the 2020 election, the accusations justify “substantial federal interest and [require] additional inquiry,” said Jordan, which could “in turn inform potential legislative reform.” Despite Dormitzer and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla’s claim that the timing of the COVID-19 vaccine testing and results were above board, the House Judiciary Committee presses on with its investigation. Now that he has been subpoenaed by the committee, Dormitzer can no longer dodge testifying before the committee in person. According to the subpoena, Dormitzer will appear for a deposition at 10 a.m. on July 22.  The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.