#//to be clear he “supports gay rights” in the most boomer way possible

[crimsiin]

//crim

[megacircuit9universe]

The Last Touchstone

FRI FEB 14 2020

So, since my last entry, it’s been... I would call it, a, “noisy,” news week.

What I mean by that is... there was one big story... and then there were a string of other stories, with a different narrative, which, I sense were being pushed to drown out the one big story.

The one big story was... Bernie Sanders decisively became the front runner for the Democratic nomination.  He won New Hampshire... with Joe Biden placing 5th... and Polls afterward had him not only taking California and Texas in the near future, but also the easy winner of the nomination.

And though this got a bit of coverage in the media, and made newspaper headlines... it was split screened, at the very least, or totally drowned out later in the week, by obsessive coverage of Trump doing exactly what we expected him to be doing, after being acquitted by the Senate... which also was exactly what we expected the Senate to do.

He started by firing Vindman and Sondland, who testified against him to the House.  Who thought they were going to keep their jobs after that?  I didn’t.  Did they?

Then Barr of course, pressured the DOJ team who’d been prosecuting Roger Stone, to recommend a sentence half what they were planning on (7 to 9 years) after an angry tweet from Trump... a move which caused every member of that prosecution team to resign from the case, or quit the DOJ altogether.

That’s clearly an abuse of power on Trump’s part, but it’s exactly the same kind of shit he was doing before the impeachment... and Barr obeyed him exactly as he always does.  This was not new or surprising... except for the fact that the prosecution all resigned immediately.

That’s the headline, and if anything, it thwarts Trump and Barr, because it halts the sentence recommendation, and give the Judge (as well as the House) time and cause to look into possible wrongdoing from the AG... and Barr could soon face his own impeachment trial, or be forced to resign.

At any rate, in my book it seems Trump’s impeachment did nothing but hurt him here, as it put a spotlight on this nefarious behavior which would otherwise have happened in the shadows... and punctuated how wrong his acquittal was, thus hurting his loyals in the Senate.

Okay, but the mainstream media focused on Trumps retaliatory actions as if they were unprecedented, and took the fear mongering angle that he was becoming an autocrat... and what the hell are we gonna do now?..  

...to the exclusion of any meaningful coverage on the contest to decide Trump’s 2020 opponent... for which there is now a clear front runner, as well as a couple more strong candidates.

They don’t want to look at that contest, because the candidates they wanted to oppose Trump... Biden, or if not Biden, then Warren... are both doing miserably in these early primaries, and will both probably drop out before March is over.

So instead of talking about the candidates who are doing well, with Sanders leading the pack... they’d rather fear monger about Dictator Trump, and hope that voters will pick up, from their silence about the primaries... that all hope is lost, unless Biden and/or Warren can be raised from the dead.

What exactly do I mean by fear mongering?

I’ll give Rachel Maddow as an example here... but bear in mind that I’ve been watching her regularly since 2017 and in all that time, have been a biggggg fan of hers.  Loved her!  Praised her!

But this week she did a segment about Trump’s post acquittal retaliations in which she was uncharacteristically hysterical.

She said that the resignations of the DOJ prosecutors for Stone, after Barr pulled rank on them because of a Trump tweet, were meaningless... because all resignations in protest are meaningless now... because everybody in the Executive Branch who have stood up to Trump, from them, to Vindman and Sondland, to Bolton, to everybody... she listed everybody...

...have had their lives, “destroyed,” by Trump.

This... made me physically gag to hear her assert it, in such an animated, alarmist tone... for two big reasons;

1) No their lives were not destroyed.

2) No matter what they suffer, it’s part and parcel of taking the oath.

On the first point... he fired them.  They lost nice jobs paying good money.  Oh no!  Every single one of them will land on their feet... if not by retiring on the piles of  money they already have, then by just getting other jobs, or by writing books, doing the lecture circuit, being political pundits on MSNBC... the opportunities for these people are endless.

To say that their lives have been destroyed is a gigantic insult to people’s who’s lives have been destroyed, either by unjust presidential policies of the past, by putting them in jail (war on drugs), putting them out on the street (economic policies), deporting them, etc... OR... their lives have been literally ended by going off to war to fight for our constitution with actual guns in actual battles against armed combatants. 

Which leads to the second point... they took the same oath as any member of the military.

We say that Vindman and Sondland were brave... but they were doing their fucking jobs, according to the oath everybody takes when they take a job with the Executive Branch.  Same for these prosecutors who resigned.

It’s not bravery to stand by an oath you took when entering public service.  It’s cowardice to do anything but.

I’ve said this before, and I need to say it again, there is nothing in the oath to defend our constitution that says, “unless it’s really inconvenient, or could cause you undo public embarrassment on social media, or could force you to retire and live off your fortune before you were ready.”

And for Rachel Maddow, of all people, to imply that the relative inconvenience these people have suffered standing up to a real constitutional menace... is too high a price to pay, and that therefore, such stands in the future are meaningless now... is truly galling... given the powerful megaphone she used to say it.

Nowhere in that segment did she say, “But don’t worry, because we have some good Democratic candidates to vote for to put an end to this nightmare just a few months from now.”

It was unmitigated fear mongering... coming from a state of deep denial about where the American public is actually going in 2020... and done in a desperate attempt to raise centrism from its grave.

Because 20th Century style centrism... and the status quo capitalism that goes along with it... is the bread and butter of Rachel Maddow, as well as her mainstream journalist colleagues.  

This same week, Chris Matthews stated fears that if Bernie were president, there would be public lynchings of the elite in Times Square, and Chuck Todd likened Bernie supporters to, “brown shirts,” a statement that got him a slap in the face by the Anti Defamation League... likening Bernie, a Jew, who grew up with holocaust survivors, to Hitler.

In short, Centrists are terrified of Trump, on the one hand, because they are fantastically over blowing the significance of his Senate acquittal (which I’ve already covered is par for the course in a Presidential impeachment, but never saves the impeached party from immediate retirement) and fearing he will throw them all in Guantanamo next week... now that he has no checks at all on his awesome power (his approval ratings are always shit, nearly 80% of the public wants him removed, the courts hate his guts, one half of congress hates him, and the other half is up for reelection).

On the other hand Bernie Sanders, if elected, will command his brown shirts to hang them all in Times Square, because they have comfortable livelihoods.

These are mostly boomers, by the way, and boomers are the generation who invented centrism... this philosophy of being sympathetic to social justice issues, but also sympathetic to conservative financial concerns... give me my huge paycheck, and McMansion in my gated community, and keep my taxes low... but also... hey, racism is bad and gays are people too!

For boomer centrists, it’s about... staying true to your teenage rebellious phase, when you protested the man, because it was cool... but also enjoying the life of the man... and the system the man made for you... it’s a balance.

There are a lot of conservative folks to the right of center, so... it’s easy to go a bit left and just... balance that out.  But keep the see-saw level!  Center!  Level!  Balance!  

In the closing paragraph of my last entry, In so many words, I argued that Trump has concentrated so much weight... so far right of center... that the only way to counter it now... is to get further left.

But, when you’re a centrist... any change is inconvenience, and any inconvenience is equivalent to having your life destroyed!  

We’re not supposed to live in history... we’re only supposed to use history as a way to impose our centrist views on everybody, to keep it from changing!

They obsess over two periods of time... WW2, and the 1960s.  In the former era, some generation of sad souls gave their lives to put down totalitarianism around the globe and keep the world free.  

In the latter... another unfortunate generation... (the Silent Generation for the most part), endured all kinds of horrors (including high profile assassinations to JFK, RFK, and MLK) to secure the civil rights we all enjoy today.  

All of this was selflessly done to settle all the major problems in life... for us!.. the people who don’t have to be inconvenienced by history anymore :D

And if any candidate, or social issue has ever threatened to upset that... well... they just analyze WW2 at everybody... and analyze the 1960s at everybody... until the problem slinks away into the shadows of shame.

This is why Bernie will be hanging the elites in Times Square, and why Trump is already an all powerful Hitler... and also why the only person who can save us is the former VP of Obama... because without Hillary Clinton in the race... Biden is the last touchstone of the world they knew.

It wasn’t always a world they liked... with Reagan and Bush pulling their naughty conservative shenanigans during their allotted terms on the Presidential see saw... but it was a world where the corrupt ones... the Nixons, stepped down.

Despite the political cold snaps and heat waves, over the long run, life always remained stable.

Just like the climate!

And, just as climate change is the result of boomer centrism constantly ignoring the warning signs, because to acknowledge them would result in inconvenience... 

...so too, we can see pretty clearly in February of 2020... Trump’s Presidency itself was the result of these same people gate-keeping Bernie Sanders out of the nomination process in 2016.

I’ll state that again for emphasis;

Trumps Presidency was the result of centrists gate-keeping Bernie Sanders out of the 2016 nomination process.

This was done by the DNC putting their thumb on the scales in a few key primaries to favor Clinton... and in the General election it was done by overwhelming press coverage, assuring everybody that Clinton was going to win the Presidency by a landslide.

The former action had the result of alienating an organic grassroots movement of progressive voters across the nation.  The latter, convinced them to stay home, because they were not needed, while simultaneously daring Trump supporters to come out and vote, because they would not matter.

And having learned nothing, they meant to go right back to that same script this time around, with Biden.

But it’s not an option this time around... and they’re having nervous breakdowns about it.  Huge, panic ridden nervous breakdowns, calling for everybody to just give up hope.

All of this said... and with the hour growing late...

Bernie was right, in his victory speech in New Hampshire, to point out that he’s put together a grass roots coalition which is multiracial, and multigenerational. It doesn’t depend on any one demographic, because it has significant voting power coming from all of them... and it’s not gonna be easily swept aside, either by billionaires, or mainstream neglect, or Trump power stunts... because it does have roots... it has real weight... and he’s in the lead... and gaining momentum.

Okay, that’s enough for one entry.

I’ve got work in the morning.

[socimages]

What can the history of divorce tell us about the future of marriage?

By Philip Cohen, PhD; originally posted at Timeline

To get some perspective on the long term trend in divorce, we need to check some common assumptions. Most importantly, we have to shake the idea that the trend is just moving in one direction, tracking a predictable course from “olden days” to “nowadays.”

It’s so common to think of society developing in on direction over time that people rarely realize they are doing it. Regardless of political persuasion, people tend to collapse history into then versus now whether they’re using specific dates and facts or just imagining the sweep of history.

In reality, sometimes it’s true and sometimes it’s not true that society has a direction of change over a long time period. Some social trends are pretty clear, such as population growth, longevity, wealth, or the expansion of education. But when you look more closely, and narrow the focus to the last century or so, it turns out that even the trends that are following some path of progress aren’t moving linearly, and the fluctuations can be the big story.

Demography provides many such examples. For example, although it’s certainly true that Americans have fewer children now than they did a century ago, the Baby Boom – that huge spike in birth rates from 1946 to 1964 – was such a massive disruption that in some ways it is the big story of the century. Divorce is another.

The most popular false assumption about divorce – sort of like crime or child abuse – is that it’s always getting worse (which isn’t true of crime or child abuse, either). In the broadest sense, yes, there is more divorce nowadays than there was in the olden days, but the trend is complicated and has probably reversed.

It turns out, however, that the story of divorce rates is ridiculously complicated. For one thing, there is no central data source that simply counts all divorces. The National Center for Health Statistics used to divorces from states, but now six states don’t feel like cooperating anymore, including, unbelievably, California. Even where divorces are counted, key information may not be available, such as the people’s age or how long they were married (or, now that there is gay divorce, their genders). Fortunately, the Census Bureau (for now) does a giant sample survey, the American Community Survey, which gives us great data on divorce patterns, but they only started collecting that information in 2008.

The way demographers ask the question is also different from what the public wants to know. The typical concerned citizen (or honeymooner) wants to know: what are the odds that I (or someone else getting married today) will end up divorced? Science can guess, but it’s impossible to give a definitive answer, because we can’t actually predict human behavior. Still, we can help.

The short answer is that divorce is more common than it was a 75 years ago, but less common than it was at the peak in 1979. The red and grey graph above is the trend in what we call the “refined” divorce rate – the number of divorces each year for every thousand married women in the country. The figure uses the federal tally from states from 1940 to 1997, leaves out the period when there was no national collection, and then picks up again when the American Community Survey started asking about divorce.

So the long term upward trend is complicated by a huge spike from soldiers returning home at the end of World War II (a divorce boom, to go with the Baby Boom), a steep increase in the sixties and seventies, and then a downward glide to the present.

How is it possible that divorce has been declining for more than three decades? Part of it is a function of the aging population. As demographers Sheela Kennedy and Steven Ruggles have argued, old people divorce less, and the married population is older now than it was in 1979, because the giant Baby Boom is now mostly in its sixties and people are getting married at older ages. This is tricky, though, because although older people still divorce less, the divorce rates for older people (50+) have doubled in the last two decades. Baby Boomers especially like to get divorced and remarried once their kids are out of the house.

But there is a real divorce decline, too, and this is promising about the future, because it’s concentrated among young people – their chances of divorcing have fallen over the last decade. So, although in my own research I’ve estimated that estimated that 53% of couples marrying today will get divorced, that is probably skewed by all the older people still pulling up the rates. Typical Americans getting married in their late 20s today probably have a less than even chance of getting divorced. The divorce will probably keep falling.

Rather than a conservative turn toward family values, I think this represents an improving quality of marriages. When marriage is voluntary – when people really choose to get married instead of simply marching into it under pressure to conform – one hopes they would be making better choices, and the data support that. Further, as marriage has become more rare, it has also become more select. Despite more than a decade of futile marriage promotion efforts by the federal government, marriage is still moving up the income scale. The people getting married today are more privileged than they used to be: more highly educated (both partners), and more stably situated. All that bodes well for the survival of their marriages, but doesn’t help the people left out of the institution. If less divorce just means only perfect couples are getting married, that’s merely another indicator of rising inequality.

Putting this trend back in that long term context, we should also ask whether falling divorce rates – which run counter to the common assumption that everything modern in family life is about the destruction of the nuclear family – are always a good thing. Most people getting married would like to think they’ll stay together for the long haul. But what is the right amount of divorce for a society to have? It seems like an odd question, but divorce really isn’t like crime or child abuse. You want some divorces, because otherwise it means people are stuck in bad marriages. If you have no divorce that means even abusive marriages can’t break up. If you have a moderate amount, it means pretty bad marriages can break up but people don’t treat it lightly. And if you have tons of divorce it means people are just dropping each other willy-nilly. When you put it that way, moderate sounds best. No one has been able to put numbers to those levels, but it’s still good to ask. Even as we shouldn’t assume families are always falling apart more than they used to, we should consider the pros and cons of divorce, rather than insisting more is always worse.

Philip N. Cohen is a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park. He writes the blog Family Inequality and is the author of The Family: Diversity, Inequality, and Social Change. You can follow him on Twitter or Facebook.

[melindarowens]

Millennials Choose To Spend Money On Travel, Dining, And Fitness Than Save For Retirement: Survey

Submitted by Nicholas Colas of Convergex

Millennials save more of their income than older generations. Don’t believe it? Look at a recent survey by Merrill Edge, which found millennials say they save 36% more than their general population counterparts report as over a third stash away more than 20% of their salary per year.

As for what they’re saving for, that’s another story. Whereas baby boomers save for retirement, millennials want financial freedom and save for a desired lifestyle rather than exiting the workforce. Millennials would rather spend money on travel, dining, and fitness than save for their financial future. They are also more focused on certain milestones like landing their dream job or traveling the world, and are less worried about getting married or having kids. Bottom line, millennials are saving, just for shorter-term goals as compared to their parents.

Where were you thirty years ago? My parents and many of our readers likely remember the stock market’s ascension to record highs before the sudden crash of 1987. A few decades later the capital market is back to flirting with another peak, but the loss-averse nature of people leaves past financial crises clearly imprinted into memory.

The Atlantic put together 41 pictures for a glimpse into 1987 that captured a wide variety of figures and events during that year. One such portrait included passengers on the F train in New York reading the newspaper after “Black Monday.” The front cover of the New York Post read “Wall St. Bloodbath” in huge bold letters and “Panic selling sweeps market: P.5” at the bottom of the page. Six clocks sat between the two texts, reflecting the event’s global reach.

Here are some other descriptions of pictures from that time to highlight just how different our world is three decades on:

Now-President-but-then-private-citizen Donald Trump greets Liza Minelli backstage at Carnegie Hall, along with his then wife Ivana Trump, and Henry and Nancy Kissinger. Fast forward 30 years (almost to the month) and likely much to his disbelief at that time he’s currently representing the free world by traveling abroad and meeting with foreign leaders. Far cry from real estate deals, that.

The vice president of marketing for Compaq Computer Corporation shows off the new Compaq Portable III at the Mark Hellinger Theater in New York, which weighs just 18 pounds so that it’s easy (!) to carry. Now not only our computer but phone capabilities rest in just one device and fit right in our pockets, with the iPhone 7 weighing as light as between 5 to 7 ounces.

Then First Lady Nancy Reagan watches an anti-drug musical, Just Say No, at a high school in Alexandria, Virginia. Tough to imagine now about two-thirds of Americans live in a state where some form of marijuana is legal. The momentum continues in that direction as well, with 60% of Americans favoring legalization of the drug according to a 2016 Gallup poll.

About 200,000 people (according to US Park Police estimates) rally on the National Mall in support of gays and lesbians. Fast forward and we now have marriage equality.

Bernie Sanders, then Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, records songs and a conversation about his philosophy on tape: “Sanders feels music is a powerful way to communicate with the masses.” Little did people see just how much he would connect with the masses this past presidential election, particularly among the politically hard to reach millennial cohort.

For more photographs down memory lane, here’s a link to the article with everyone from David Bowie and Princess Diana to Pee-wee Herman and Howard Stern:

Thirty years ago, baby boomers were in their twenties and up, and now their kids’ ages span from nearly twenty to their mid-thirties. As those old photographs show, however, millennials’ experience in their twenties and thirties vastly differs from their parents socially, culturally, and economically. We therefore have different values and goals, which even extends to our financial lives.

A recent survey of over 1,000 Americans conducted from March 21st to April 5th by Merrill Edge showed a stark generational divide about different groups’ life priorities. Some of these findings may come as a surprise. Here are the results:

Top life priorities: “millennials are the first generation to plan long-term for financial freedom instead of retirement.” Most (63%) millennials are “looking to save a set amount of money or income necessary to enjoy their desired lifestyle, compared to the majority (55%) of Gen Xers and baby boomers who are saving so they can leave the workforce.” Millennials are “significantly more likely than their older counterparts to focus on personal milestones of working at their dream job (42%, compared to 23%) and traveling the world (37%, compared to 21%).”

Additionally, “today’s 18- to 34-year-olds are also far less likely to emphasize the traditional family milestones of getting married (43%, compared to 51%) and being a parent (36%, compared to 59%).”

Spending patterns: most millennials are more likely to spend money on “travel (81%), dining (65%) and fitness (55%) than save for their financial future.” The report attributes this to FOMO, or the “fear of missing out”.

Savings: millennials “say they save 36% more than their generational counterparts, with more than one-third (36%) setting aside more than 20% of their salary per year.” As for overall respondents, 42% are saving less than 10% of their salary, while 7% don’t save anything.

Ironic given that Americans think the “Greatest Generation (54%) does a ‘very good’ job of saving, followed by baby boomers (45%), Gen Xers (19%) and millennials (8%).” In fact, just 15% of millennials think of themselves as good savers. So even though 45% of millennials consult their parents “always” or “often” for financial advice and think they’re better savers, it’s the opposite.

Consequently, Americans aren’t saving enough and feel unprepared for uncertain scenarios. Most Americans “are not very confident they would be able to achieve their financial goals if they were to: get a divorce (71%), have children (64%), live to 100 years old (62%) or outlive their significant other (48%).” The problem, they are not “financially planning for these scenarios either, with only 5% saving for the possibility of divorce and 23% for the possibility of children.”

Therefore, 59% of respondents think Americans should be required to save for their own retirement, and 48% believe financial education should be required.

Technology: Two in five Americans report “using an online or mobile portal to manage their investments.” Respondents also say using these platforms “has a positive impact that makes users feel more knowledgeable (51%), empowered (31%) and savvy (14%).” Going forward over the next decade, Americans “believe emerging technologies will allow more people to invest (41%)” and that a “majority of investments will become automated (34%), the 401(k) account will no longer be the ‘gold standard’ (29%), and the market will be dominated by women (13%).”

As for robo advisors, one in eight (13%) Americans currently use one or would consider it in the next year. Zeroing in on millennials, however, brings this figure up to 22%.

Link to the full report.

The upshot: whereas baby boomers save for retirement, millennials want financial freedom and save for their desired lifestyle rather than seeking to exit the workforce. Americans may view older generations as better savers, but millennials actually take the cake there. They just have different priorities that are shorter-term than their parents. Of course this could pose risks for millennials when they finally grow to their parents’ age and beyond, but this survey shows a clear way for financial professionals to best reach them: on mobile where they already give most of their attention, and addressing their unique take on life goals.

source http://capitalisthq.com/millennials-choose-to-spend-money-on-travel-dining-and-fitness-than-save-for-retirement-survey/ from CapitalistHQ http://capitalisthq.blogspot.com/2017/05/millennials-choose-to-spend-money-on.html

[everettwilkinson]

Millennials Choose To Spend Money On Travel, Dining, And Fitness Than Save For Retirement: Survey

Submitted by Nicholas Colas of Convergex

Millennials save more of their income than older generations. Don’t believe it? Look at a recent survey by Merrill Edge, which found millennials say they save 36% more than their general population counterparts report as over a third stash away more than 20% of their salary per year.

As for what they’re saving for, that’s another story. Whereas baby boomers save for retirement, millennials want financial freedom and save for a desired lifestyle rather than exiting the workforce. Millennials would rather spend money on travel, dining, and fitness than save for their financial future. They are also more focused on certain milestones like landing their dream job or traveling the world, and are less worried about getting married or having kids. Bottom line, millennials are saving, just for shorter-term goals as compared to their parents.

Where were you thirty years ago? My parents and many of our readers likely remember the stock market’s ascension to record highs before the sudden crash of 1987. A few decades later the capital market is back to flirting with another peak, but the loss-averse nature of people leaves past financial crises clearly imprinted into memory.

The Atlantic put together 41 pictures for a glimpse into 1987 that captured a wide variety of figures and events during that year. One such portrait included passengers on the F train in New York reading the newspaper after “Black Monday.” The front cover of the New York Post read “Wall St. Bloodbath” in huge bold letters and “Panic selling sweeps market: P.5” at the bottom of the page. Six clocks sat between the two texts, reflecting the event’s global reach.

Here are some other descriptions of pictures from that time to highlight just how different our world is three decades on:

Now-President-but-then-private-citizen Donald Trump greets Liza Minelli backstage at Carnegie Hall, along with his then wife Ivana Trump, and Henry and Nancy Kissinger. Fast forward 30 years (almost to the month) and likely much to his disbelief at that time he’s currently representing the free world by traveling abroad and meeting with foreign leaders. Far cry from real estate deals, that.

The vice president of marketing for Compaq Computer Corporation shows off the new Compaq Portable III at the Mark Hellinger Theater in New York, which weighs just 18 pounds so that it’s easy (!) to carry. Now not only our computer but phone capabilities rest in just one device and fit right in our pockets, with the iPhone 7 weighing as light as between 5 to 7 ounces.

Then First Lady Nancy Reagan watches an anti-drug musical, Just Say No, at a high school in Alexandria, Virginia. Tough to imagine now about two-thirds of Americans live in a state where some form of marijuana is legal. The momentum continues in that direction as well, with 60% of Americans favoring legalization of the drug according to a 2016 Gallup poll.

About 200,000 people (according to US Park Police estimates) rally on the National Mall in support of gays and lesbians. Fast forward and we now have marriage equality.

Bernie Sanders, then Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, records songs and a conversation about his philosophy on tape: “Sanders feels music is a powerful way to communicate with the masses.” Little did people see just how much he would connect with the masses this past presidential election, particularly among the politically hard to reach millennial cohort.

For more photographs down memory lane, here’s a link to the article with everyone from David Bowie and Princess Diana to Pee-wee Herman and Howard Stern:

Thirty years ago, baby boomers were in their twenties and up, and now their kids’ ages span from nearly twenty to their mid-thirties. As those old photographs show, however, millennials’ experience in their twenties and thirties vastly differs from their parents socially, culturally, and economically. We therefore have different values and goals, which even extends to our financial lives.

A recent survey of over 1,000 Americans conducted from March 21st to April 5th by Merrill Edge showed a stark generational divide about different groups’ life priorities. Some of these findings may come as a surprise. Here are the results:

Top life priorities: “millennials are the first generation to plan long-term for financial freedom instead of retirement.” Most (63%) millennials are “looking to save a set amount of money or income necessary to enjoy their desired lifestyle, compared to the majority (55%) of Gen Xers and baby boomers who are saving so they can leave the workforce.” Millennials are “significantly more likely than their older counterparts to focus on personal milestones of working at their dream job (42%, compared to 23%) and traveling the world (37%, compared to 21%).”

Additionally, “today’s 18- to 34-year-olds are also far less likely to emphasize the traditional family milestones of getting married (43%, compared to 51%) and being a parent (36%, compared to 59%).”

Spending patterns: most millennials are more likely to spend money on “travel (81%), dining (65%) and fitness (55%) than save for their financial future.” The report attributes this to FOMO, or the “fear of missing out”.

Savings: millennials “say they save 36% more than their generational counterparts, with more than one-third (36%) setting aside more than 20% of their salary per year.” As for overall respondents, 42% are saving less than 10% of their salary, while 7% don’t save anything.

Ironic given that Americans think the “Greatest Generation (54%) does a ‘very good’ job of saving, followed by baby boomers (45%), Gen Xers (19%) and millennials (8%).” In fact, just 15% of millennials think of themselves as good savers. So even though 45% of millennials consult their parents “always” or “often” for financial advice and think they’re better savers, it’s the opposite.

Consequently, Americans aren’t saving enough and feel unprepared for uncertain scenarios. Most Americans “are not very confident they would be able to achieve their financial goals if they were to: get a divorce (71%), have children (64%), live to 100 years old (62%) or outlive their significant other (48%).” The problem, they are not “financially planning for these scenarios either, with only 5% saving for the possibility of divorce and 23% for the possibility of children.”

Therefore, 59% of respondents think Americans should be required to save for their own retirement, and 48% believe financial education should be required.

Technology: Two in five Americans report “using an online or mobile portal to manage their investments.” Respondents also say using these platforms “has a positive impact that makes users feel more knowledgeable (51%), empowered (31%) and savvy (14%).” Going forward over the next decade, Americans “believe emerging technologies will allow more people to invest (41%)” and that a “majority of investments will become automated (34%), the 401(k) account will no longer be the ‘gold standard’ (29%), and the market will be dominated by women (13%).”

As for robo advisors, one in eight (13%) Americans currently use one or would consider it in the next year. Zeroing in on millennials, however, brings this figure up to 22%.

Link to the full report.

The upshot: whereas baby boomers save for retirement, millennials want financial freedom and save for their desired lifestyle rather than seeking to exit the workforce. Americans may view older generations as better savers, but millennials actually take the cake there. They just have different priorities that are shorter-term than their parents. Of course this could pose risks for millennials when they finally grow to their parents’ age and beyond, but this survey shows a clear way for financial professionals to best reach them: on mobile where they already give most of their attention, and addressing their unique take on life goals.

from CapitalistHQ.com http://capitalisthq.com/millennials-choose-to-spend-money-on-travel-dining-and-fitness-than-save-for-retirement-survey/