Doomsday Millennials Refusing to Save Money Because Climate Change

Doomsday Millennials Refusing to Save Money Because Climate Change

Millennials are in deep trouble financially. But as they drown in student and auto loan debt, they also struggle to find gainful employment. With bills piling up, they’re forced to resort to side gigs and part-time jobs to make ends meet. And at the end of the month, all this struggle doesn’t add up to much, and they carry on unable to save for the future.

But while their reality isn’t a hard one to explain, especially if you understand that monetary policy and government’s intervention in the education and housing businesses have contributed to the high cost of living, millennials are in denial. Instead of saving, they prefer to live in the moment. After all, climate change is going to have catastrophic consequences anyway, so why bother to think of the future?

According to MarketWatch, 88% of millennials believe that climate change is real, and 69% say that it will impact them in their lifetimes. Their perception of the world and the future is so affected by this notion that some will even double down, claiming that it isn’t “hyperbolic to be a little apocalyptic.”

But while two-thirds of all millennials have zero saved for retirement, it’s important to question whether young people are just using climate change as an excuse or whether they are truly worried that they may not live long enough to have a future.

Millennials Can’t Make Money, or Can They?

MarketWatch points out to the sharp increase in mental health issues among young adults and teens in the United States, explaining that the “number of individuals between the ages of 18 and 25 reporting symptoms of major depression increased 52% from 2005 to 2017.” In the meantime, older adults did not experience the same increase, quite the contrary, as some age groups saw major drops instead.

Some of the factors associated with this sharp increase include use of digital media, which reportedly changes how people interact, leading to greater social apprehension, and “eco-anxiety.”

According to an American Psychological Association report from 2018, 72% of millennials said they suffered from emotional distress thanks to the “inevitability of climate change.” Interestingly, about 60% of millennials also claim to have nothing saved for their old age, according to the National Institute on Retirement Security.

While the majority admit that they don’t save because they can’t afford to, many say they have no future to save for.

“There is a certain fatalism in this population relative to more recent generations,” Matt Fellowes, chief executive officer of United Income, an online retirement investment platform said. “Psychologically, this population has had more shocks to expectations about their futures than past generations. From a perception point of view, I hear a lot of cynicism about the ability to build retirement savings or whether they will be able to retire at all.”

This fatalism appears to be affecting other areas of millennials’ lives as well, as a staggering 38% say that couples should consider climate change and its effects when thinking about having children.

In addition, millennials claim to like socialism and socialist policies, as only 45% of young adults claim to see capitalism positively, a considerable drop from 2010, when 68% favored capitalism. Needless to say, these young adults are clearly clueless as to what socialism actually is. If they did have any real knowledge of what happens under a socialist regime, it’s fair to say they would think twice before embracing it.

All things considered, it is clear that millennials are going through a real crisis, but not one of mental anguish due to climate change. If anything, young adults are suffering from lack of economic knowledge and basic familiarity with history.

Comment section

6 thoughts on “Doomsday Millennials Refusing to Save Money Because Climate Change

  1. Leave your kids in the hands of government-agent educators. Express shock when what they learn is to love Big Brother. Imagine.

  2. To sum up, younger generations are concerned about their future while older ones are comfy in their knowledge that they wont have to deal with whatever that future may hold. I already know a few people who either think of anyone who is pushing for AGW action as “environmentally conscious” or think it’s “all not true”. Both positions show just how little comprehension there is on the issue.

    Either way, even simple proposed actions that would help lower their personal costs seem to be too much to handle for the most insignificant of reasons. I had to personally purchase and replace water flow filters in the home of one relative and the reaction was that it takes too long to fill a kettle (the actual extra time is a few minutes per year so apparently a few minutes time per year is not worth spending for a safer future even if it saves money). I’ve also talked with plenty of people online where they would consider incandescent bulbs as their God given right even though these cost more, pollute more and make their homes less pleasant during summer months. In one instance I lent an electric heater to some relatives and said they can turn down the fossil fuel heating a little and use the electric instead (the grid is comparatively clean here), what they actually did was to leave the fossil fuel heating on and activate the electric as well in areas where the fossil fuel heating couldn’t quite heat properly, so instead of lowering pollution and energy use they likely increased it.

    If the above isn’t depressing to anyone with even a minor understanding of the consequences of AGW I don’t know what is, so maybe instead of looking at it as if it’s the younger generation’s fault for feeling this way, one should examine the attitude of existing generations towards any serious or even minor effort to tackle the issue.

  3. You’ll need to be more specific with your definition of “socialism”. Social security as well as medical security and insurance are not the kind of socialism you seem to be referring to. In Europe, countries with some of the highest living standards in the world have extensive “socialist” structures like compulsory medical insurance. What you are actually referring to is not at all so different from the way the current GOP is acting, same coin but the opposite side where a few people decide the future of everyone else based on personal desires for power and wealth instead of the wellbeing of the population both now and in the future. You are completely correct about the fact that this does not usually end well and certainly won’t end well this time around either.

  4. We have let the government, usually meaning the ones who crave power, have access to teaching and brainwashing our children, our future leaders. The leadership is failing our country and this can be seen now after 40 years of creeping government involvement.

    It will take a big shock to wake up the people to take back control of their own lives.

  5. The biggest problem I see with respect to climate change “believers” is that it’s often made out to be an all or nothing position. Either you believe in impending catastrophe or you’re a “denier.”

    But the fact is that there’s a lot of positions in between. No one who knows any science about it knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that mankind has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere well above what it would be naturally. The consequences of that increase, per lab experiment, would be about 1.1C warming for each doubling of the CO2 concentration. So 1.1C if it gets to 570ppm (double the pre-industrial level) and 2.2C if it ever got to 1140ppm (highly unlikely).

    The contentious part is about feedbacks. How the climate responds to the increased temperature from the CO2 alone. If there are no feedbacks (hard to believe), we’d get the numbers above. If there is negative feedback (which most natural systems have) it would end up less than those numbers above. Even less to worry about. If there is positive feedback, then the numbers get bigger. But what is the right number? No one knows. Everyone makes their guesses and puts their own numbers inside their own simulations and gets a number out.

    But none of their simulations matches the temperature record for pre-1950. In fact, almost every simulation matches the temperature record almost perfectly between the years 1950 and 1998, including the effects of two major volcanic eruptions. But the farther you go on either side, the less match there is. You can create an equation to exactly match any dataset if you use enough terms. In fact, that’s the only way to get a match for really complex systems. But it’s not of any predictive value. If a simulation doesn’t explain *known* data, then it’s also of no predictive value. Obviously, something’s missing. Something (or many somethings) very important.

    But anyone who even brings up these facts gets labeled a “denier” as well. No wonder so many just toss the whole thing out the window as nonsense. There is no scientific consensus for the catastrophic view. Nowhere near it. There is only a consensus for the first part … the basic facts of the temperature response of a gaseous mix with more or less CO2 in it, *NOT* the multipliers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *