The budget breakdown of an average 25-year-old who is probably broke and has no life

CNBC's Emmie Martin caught my attention the other day when the digital platform tweeted her article about a 25-year-old who makes $100k. The article comes from their Make It series which purports to help you be "smarter about how you earn, save and spend your money". The subgenre appears to be a segment titled Millennial Money, which doesn't have a mission statement but features a few articles about millennials making various amounts of money and how they're able to get by with it with budgeting skills.

This particular article follows Trevor Klee, a 25-year-old self-employed tutor making $100k a year. Apparently, other young Bostonians can learn personal finances from how Trevor operates his budget, but if Millenial Money is supposed to share in the mission of making one smarter about how to earn, spend, and save then they shouldn't be using such an anomalous case.

A better model would have found a more average millennial earner who can scrape by in the city. Since I can't go to Boston and spend the time finding one of these I decided to take Trevor's spending habits and translate them to a more average millennial living in Boston.

Lessons in How to Save

It's important to first point out the ridiculousness of Trevor's situation. We'll leave aside the fact that a self-employed LSAT tutor makes $100k a year (even though this fact should absolutely astound people). According to TaxAct Trevor's income places him in a bracket where he's taxed 28% of his income, which leaves him with $72,000 post-tax disposal income. Trevor has a monthly spend of $6,000 a month. Take a closer look at the CNBC chart:

Spending only $2,775 means Trevor is pocketing $3,225 in savings every month. This amounts to an annual savings of $38,700. I have no idea where this excess money is going. The article states that "Klee has around $43,000 put away" in total so he's clearly spending it somewhere. The article also says he only spends around $350 on a workspace and another $200 in marketing for his business. That's still $2,675 in pure savings every month!

Throughout the rest of this post, I'm going to demonstrate that any lessons learned from Trevor are highly unlikely to benefit the average millennial living in similar conditions.

Based on some publicly available data and cowboy math here is the new spending breakdown I made for an average millennial in Boston (unlabeled categories are the same):

Earnings:

I thought I would be generous when considering the earning potential of our fictional self-employed millennial from Boston. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says 25 - 34-year-olds make just over $40k on average. I decided to go with the average salary for a college graduate which is $51,000 according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers because I'm not sure how anyone could even get by in Boston on $41k (though keep this in mind) and city earnings typically trend higher than national averages. The TaxAct tax bracket estimation is 25%, so we're looking at a monthly spend of $3,187.

Without looking any further it seems our fictional average millennial could replicate Trevor's spending habits and still walk away with $382 in savings a month. Not great, but far from destitution (although not enough to afford a $550 workspace and marketing budget). However, I'm not convinced that the story of what Trevor spends on things like rent, healthcare, and food is all that average.

Rent:

Trevor splits rent as one of four roommates in a rental house. It seems that Trevor got lucky landing a monthly rent of $3,300 a month total, setting his rent at $825. I went to Zillow and pulled all the 4 bedroom rental homes in Boston. There were 50 up for rent and I eliminated the highest and lowest based on where Trevor would be likely to live (I'm assuming he wouldn't be in a neighborhood with a $17,000 rent, nor would he rent in a neighborhood where a 4 bedroom would cost $2500 a month). The average came down to $4,000 a month which means the average Bostonian renting a 4 bedroom house and splitting rent 4 ways would pay $1,000 a month, $175 more than what Trevor spends.

Groceries and Dining Out:

Another unusual aspect of Trevor as a Millennial is how often he dines in. Seems he spends most of his food budget on groceries while only eating out on "a few meals each month" with his girlfriend. If we're looking to use the average millennial as our model to educate readers on spending habits we should note that a recent study by Bankrate shows over 50% of millennials eat out at least 5 times a week or more. We eat 84 meals a month (3 a day) and Trevor's total food budget is $650. Say Trevor eats five meals out a month, each costing around $50 (he says the meal ranges between $20 and $80 so this works) the other 79 meals (the ones he grocery shops for) cost just $5.

Our average millennial probably isn't eating $50 meals every time they go out. So using the Boston Travel Guide I determined that an average high-end meal in the business district costs about $32 while the average low-end meal costs $8, making the average dining experience $20 a meal. If our average millennial eats out 20 times s month (5 times during the week) at $20 a meal we're looking at $400 a month. I left $320 for the remainder of our millennial's 64 meals (which each cost $5 based on CNBC/Trevor's estimation).

Of course, the obvious lesson here is maybe millennials should be more like Trevor and eat out less. This would increase the grocery cost, potentially evening out the cost, but it's probably more cost efficient and could subsequently save some money. Yet there is a good reason to believe that millennials making less money are eating out more because of the convenience, which is itself a cost-saving measure. As activist and writer Natalie Shure points out:

So while you may spend slightly less by prepping your own food the time invested in doing so is a cost you may not be able to afford. Given the scope of millennials going out to eat this is most likely the case. It isn't a particularly useful lesson from CNBC unless they plan on teaching us how to more efficiently shop. Nothing in the Millennial Money section offers a story like this.

Insurance:

While the CNBC article goes a little further in-depth about some of Trevor's spending habits I'm not entirely sure how he gets away with spending just $270 a month on insurance. At 25 he can be on his parent's insurance but it doesn't appear he went this route, so neither will our average millennial. Both Trevor and our average millennial are self-employed too, so they have no employer-sponsored health insurance (even though that amounts to over 50% of people covered in MA). The Kaiser Family Foundation tracks the average annual premium for Massachusetts at $7,031. Since our fictional millennial is self-employed like Trevor they are on the hook for all $585 a month.

I did some hunting for plans and the closest I could find to the average was $543 a month. I couldn't find anything for $270 a month and unfortunately, the CNBC article makes no mention of how a self-employed or freelancing millennial could find the affordable insurance Trevor has.

What We Lose:

With the adjusted spend for average costs and average millennial habits I had to cut our millennial's contribution to a house cleaner ($30) and cut our donations to stay under budget enough to bring in $539 in savings a month, which still can't cover the the $550 a month for the workspace and marketing that Trevor can buy (he mentions the workspaces can cost up to $1500 a month when it's busy season). It also doesn't leave our average millennial with a lot of money to invest in a retirement account, buy clothes, pay off any debt (NBC News reports 77% of millennials have one or more forms of debt), buy Christmas gifts, buy their significant other dinner, and generally have some sort of social life. Seems the average millennial would have to make major sacrifices to their lives and businesses in order to budget the way Trevor budgets.

What Did We Learn?

Trevor Klee's situation is niche. It seems he is able to be very savvy with money because he has an abundance of it and he makes sacrifices that other American's might not be able to make. Americans in other cities have to own cars and car insurance for example. What parts of the budget should we cut to pay for this? Many Americans don't want to risk spending less on a cheap insurance plan with less than quality coverage, does CNBC recommend we do this?

The lesson for me is that austerity doesn't work. You cannot budget cut your way to prosperity and all of these millennial stories need to stop pretending like we can. What we need are large systemic changes that alleviate these strains on our material conditions. Things like:

• Medicare for All would reduce our average millennial's insurance costs to $0 with no sacrifice to coverage 
• Rent controls could help keep the rents down so our millennial doesn't have to spend a 3rd of their paycheck on rent
• A 32 hour work week could allow for more time to shop for and prepare cost effective/healthier foods at home
• Robust public transportation to keep their transportation cost down (which actually could be a lesson you take from Trevor). 

Chapo Guide to Revolution

I have a theory about the popularity of podcasts. So much of our lives revolve around work; getting to work, spending our days in an office doing data-driven tasks, driving home from work, spending the evening in a depressing state of exhaustion. This limits our options for entertainment, whatever we consume has to be hands-free so we can drive or type (which eliminates books or video games) and it can't require our visual attention because we need to, at least appear to be, focused on work (eliminating television or movies).

You could listen to audiobooks, but a lot of times these can be dense and sometimes you miss essential sections as your focus drifts in and out of your tasks. Music might seem like an obvious choice, but to me, music is more like coffee; it might make it easier to focus on a task and even make that task more enjoyable, it's not the same as entertainment.

Podcasts are handsfree, don't require any visual attention, easy to drift in and out of, extremely accessible, and are very entertaining. This is less of an endorsement of podcasts than it is a realization of the unfortunate reality that working lives are increasingly unfulfilling. We spend most of it making money for other people and entertain ourselves by listening to stories and interviews with people leading far more interesting lives.

This is cynical thinking, but then again my favorite podcast encourages this level of awareness about the mundane. Chapo Trap House is a Brooklyn based podcast that spins comedy, leftist politics, and obscure cultural references into what could be the most relevant conversation being had*. What sets them apart? They're political without managing to suffer from partisan inconsistencies, their humor punches almost exclusively up without the suggested gentleness of doing so, and their references have a range from the academic or literary to 90s drudgery.

Chapo Trap House, with their fresh perspectives and timely commentary on the material condition of people's lives, helped drive a lot of my worldview leftward. When I saw they had a book coming out I was excited. Since a lot of my interaction with their podcast has been while at work, I thought a book would allow me to engage more thoroughly with their ideas.

The Chapo Guide to Revolution reads like a lot of leftist/Marxist books I've been reading lately. It takes aim at the shortcomings of liberalism and the garishness of conservativism. The key difference is that the Chapo Guide to Revolution is funny and way more accessible. It's written for the terminally online person, the disaffected college student at a state school, and workers entombed in their cubicles. Chapo Traphouse is reaching out to groups of middle Americans who feel ignored by a system who views them as nothing but a block of buying power to market to. What's more important is that they do so effectively.

Academics, critics, or theory jockeys could make a field day out of their complaints. Many have already pointed out that the ideas are oversimplified, the history is onesided, and many concepts are assumed true. None of this fucking matters though, because the Chapo Guide to Revolution isn't speaking to critics or academics or theory jockeys, nor is it speaking their language. Those of us in the crushed middle class have been saddled with student debt and fed lies about buying products or apps that will make our lives better are currently looking to fill a void, even if we don't know it. Alt-right voices are extremely good at filling this void because they're speaking to it in a way that the status quo defending voices cannot by definition. We need more left-wing voices that can do the same thing.

From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation by Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor

To many of us, #BlackLivesMatter is a movement we reflexively support. Police brutality and other functions of systemic racism need to be opposed, our nation needs to be transformed from one that adheres to the assumption of white superiority to one of justice and egalitarianism among all people.

Which is all very easy to say, but many of us also seem confused on how to get there. Do we buy Nike shoes to show solidarity with Kaepernick? Do we post Now This videos on social media? Do we show up to anti-racism rallies? Is simply educating ourselves enough? Is this allyship?

To Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, destroying white supremacy means liberating ourselves from the systems that most utilize it. She contextualizes the #BlackLivesMatter movement in a way that illuminates what ideologies and methods have hit their limits and which ones can work to dismantle institutions premised on white supremacy.

While From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation reads more like a history book than an instruction manual, it is a very insightful text to guide one towards the sort of activist work that needs to be done. Taylor is a Marxist so the activism she promotes will be steeped in that tradition. However, this is because, as Taylor goes on to discuss at length, the efforts of liberalism (you can just forget about conservatism) have failed to unroot white supremacy and, in many cases, only served to sustain it.

There is a lot of sharp discussion on the concept of "black faces in high places" and Barack Obama. Here, Taylor demonstrates that without radical vision, the liberal ideation of diversity becomes a mere platitude. What could changing the race of the machine operator do if the levers being pulled only produce more racism? Taylor's ensuing chapters are more complex and well evidenced than that, but the point rings true.

Taylor also takes aim at our ability to address systemic white supremacy through merely changing the culture or the law. Communities ravaged by the power of racism are designed to keep people down regardless of how hard the individuals within that community work. Further, even when one accepts the racist premise of a prescriptive, "good" culture, an individual succeeding despite obstacles does nothing to dismantle the obstacles themselves, which would not be true liberation.

Discrimination is illegal in the United States, but clearly still practiced. While it is good to have the law on the side of justice, clearly it has its limits as well. In many cases, now that we have civil rights legislation, the goal is to make the law colorblind. This too is a failure, since the enforcement of laws are subject to the enforcer's biases, and therefore communities of color are more aggressively policed, as we've seen. Taylor's chapter on the country's move from civil rights to color blindness is among one of the most informative things I have ever read.

So where do we go when all the mechanisms for change we were taught in high school civics classes have reached their limits? Taylor's book is so vital a read that I don't want to risk giving you an excuse not to read it by taking a crack at what she feels the movement demands. I will say that it has a lot to do with solidarity over the universal issues of democracy, labor, and dignity in life. If you consider yourself someone who cares about ending racism in this country you have no excuse; you need to read this book.

All the Pretty Horses by Cormac McCarthy

"In the end we all come to be cured of our sentiments. Those whom life does not cure death will. The world is quite ruthless in electing between the dream and the reality, even where we will not. Between the wish and the thing the world lies waiting"

While reading Cormac McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses on vacation a few of my friends laughed at the title. Having never heard of Cormac McCarthy, they could only assume I was reading a book that a 12-year-old girl with a Lisa Frank folder would be reading in middle school.

This is actually very fitting. Everything about All the Pretty Horses is about managing expectations. Set at the dawn of the age of the cowboy, the protagonist - John Grady Cole - sets out to Mexico with his best friend Rawlins. They hope to work as ranch hands and live like frontiersmen in an age where automation and industrialization have squeezed out the last semblance of a Wild West.

All of which McCarthy refuses to spoon feed you. He is less interested in describing the motivations of his characters than the brutal landscapes they traverse. Employing his excellent craftsmanship as a writer not in bald sensory details, but rather in describing an essence; the very things that inhabit the landscapes themselves. Just read this sentence:

"When the wind was in the north you could hear them, the horses and the breath of the horses and the horses' hooves that were shod in rawhide and the rattle of lances and the constant drag of the travois poles in the sand like the passing of some enormous serpent and the young boys naked on them and the dogs trotting with their tongues aloll and foot slaves following half naked and sorely burdened and above all the low chant of their traveling song which the riders sang as they rode, nation and ghost of nation passing in a soft chorale across that mineral waste to darkness bearing lost to all history and all remembrance like a grail the sum of their secular and transitory and violent lives"

One sentence. Not grammatically correct of course, but crafted as such. Leaving a lot of the picture up to the imagination McCarthy only allows his readers what is absolutely necessary to see.

John Grady and Rawlins have a classic and predictable adventure with just a sprinkle of brutal realism. Throughout all of it are horses. The horse comes to represent the vehicle through which our heroes live out their fantasy (without including any spoilers, any time these characters get into an automobile nothing good is about to occur). When you've come to suspect you're reading a classic, maybe even boring adventure novel, McCarthy shakes you awake with a firm reminder that the world does not have any patience for dreaming.

Class Action by Jacobin and the CTU

Today, wildcat teacher strikes are popping up across the nation; particularly in states with the most consistently underfunded schools. These schools have lost even the most basic and essential tools for learning and the legislature is still cutting teacher pay, benefits, and budgets. Austerity in public education seems to be the new rule, particularly in the most vulnerable, low-income counties, but not exclusively. Teacher pay has stagnated nationwide and now there is a growing teacher shortage crisis as class sizes grow and bureaucratic testing standards strip any joy out of curriculum writing.

Most Americans understand this is happening. Most Americans, regardless of their politics, love their public school or they at least love the public school model. It is a model we know works when it’s given the proper tools to succeed. Which prompts most Americans to wonder why they aren’t given those tools. The answer is simple.

Capitalism hates your public school.

The public school model as we know works (just look at how our adequately funded and supported school districts compare globally) is one completely devoid of a profit motive. To a political economy that requires constant, unsustainable growth, models with no profit motive are seen as investment opportunities. This is why our nation’s politicians and powerful business leaders have waged a secret war against public education since the early 1990’s.

Anyone can go read about the expansion of for-profit charter schools, the application of corporate methodology to the classroom, slimy educational technology deals, the trojan horse Teach for America, and the proliferation of standardized test supply companies. But nothing comes close to the importance of Class Action, a tight, little booklet published as a joint venture between Jacobin Magazine and the Chicago Teachers Union.

What makes Class Action so important is its willingness to lay the blame entirely on capitalist forces. Doing so is necessary because, as Class Action also demonstrates, the only strategy that can effectively save our schools is one that resists efforts to inject a profit motive into the model. Although it’s short, it’s packed with the context and history of school corporatization as well as winning strategies for resistance as exercised by the CTU in their 2012 strikes.

Americans need to know that the seemingly benign “solutions” pushed by business opportunists are part of the overarching strategy of breaking the public school model. Class Action is a good read for fostering this awareness, but it also offers strategic insights on building coalitions of parents, teachers, and community leaders.

The best news is that you don’t have to be a card-carrying socialist to read this book, it won’t burn your hands.

A People's History of the United States

When you play “arguing with anti-leftist”* Bingo, you should always have a square that anticipates their view that, because you were educated in public schools, you are brainwashed by the liberal/Cultural Marxist agenda.

It’s hard not to kind of see their point. Teachers are generally left-leaning (although I’m fairly certain my 8th grade history teacher was alt-right after I recall entire lesson plans where he justified the treatment of Native Americans because they were so “savage” to settlers), academia is generally left-leaning and they write the textbooks, and tolerance - something they try to teach you  in school - is almost a left-leaning concept by default (another square in the bingo game could be the phrase “and I thought liberals were the tolerant ones”).

At any rate, you always tend to think you’re not brainwashed. You were taught a pretty accurate history in high school and college. I’ll admit that I thought this. Then I read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.

It almost seems incredibly cliche’ to say that a book has transformed your worldview as an adult, especially an adult that believes himself in the welterweight category of heavy readers, but there is no other way to describe reading A People’s History.

Zinn takes his reader from the beginning of this nation to 2001, just after 9/11. What makes the historical perspective he documents interesting can be summed up well in this quote from the book:

“All those histories of this country centered on the Founding Fathers and the Presidents weigh oppressively on the capacity of the ordinary citizens to act. They suggest that in times of crisis we must look to someone to save us: in the Revolutionary crisis, the Founding Fathers; in the slavery crisis, Lincoln; in the Depression, Roosevelt; in Vietnam, Carter. And that between occasional crises everything is alright, and it is sufficient for us to be restored to that normal state. They teach us that the supreme act of citizenship is to choose moong saviors, by going into a voting booth every four years to choose between two white and well-off Anglo-Saxon males of inoffensive personality and orthodox opinions”

Zinn introduces you to a whole range of historical figures who were ordinary American citizens that organized movements. Zinn zeros in on the aspects of history left out of public school lesson plans, namely that every ounce of progress America made towards a thriving democracy was driven by people whose only power was a collective one.

It seems repetitive and boring and obvious to talk about the ramifications of this book today. And it would be if all you talked about was how America used to be really oppressive and we seem dangerously close to getting back to some of those points. But if you take the key lesson of this book it is possibly one of the more important things you could possibly read in Trump’s America.

Why? Because this history squares everyday citizens as the chief catalysts for change. It does not demonstrate a resistance parade of late night TV shows and personalities, the liberal celebrity brigade, or a diverse corporate boardroom. Your favorite people in power are not giving any more of it to you no matter how much they hate the other people in power. This includes politicians, even good ones, so stop fetishizing your vote and get involved in a campaign to end gerrymandering or something!

If you’re feeling helpless and burned out in the face of Trump and corporate Democrats and the limits of electoral politics I couldn’t recommend a more empowering book.

__________________

*An anti-leftist is a term I am trying to popularize. It’s basically someone who holds almost incoherent and highly contradictory conservative views simply to ‘trigger the libs’. Things like hating big government but loving Trump and the wall, hating crony capitalism but advocating charter schools, supporting the troops but being prepared to shoot them should they come for our guns, distrusting Muslims but valuing Trump’s deals with Saudi Arabia, loving what Trump or Reagan or Bush did/does but hating those exact same things when Clinton, Carter, or Obama did them.

And Yet.... by Christopher Hitchens

I picked up a collection of essays titled “and yet” to see if the compiled writings of Christopher Hitchens went deeper than my previous experiences with his work. As of this moment, 4:45 pm on Saturday, March 11th, I am completely comfortable with coming to the following conclusion: I don’t care for Christopher Hitchens, may he Rest In Peace. “And Yet…” Having no experience with Hitchens outside of his essay eviscerating Mother Teresa and near ubiquitous YouTube presence, I felt it was time to actually sit down and read a body of his work. My experience with Hitchens seemed to be more in an attempt to like him when the truth was I felt his world renown, biting wit was lacking. Hitchens always had a good grasp of his debate opponent’s argument, he could quote hypocritical verses from various religious texts from memory and could cite all of the major events and characters in historic/current events. All of which is remarkably impressive but not necessarily grounds for fandom. After all, a full grasp and understanding of a subject will certainly help you make a well-rounded argument, but should not be taken for one. I’ve always felt the Hitchens' snark and depth of knowledge was aimed more at domination than a fostering of understanding. It was almost Socratic. Crushing his opponents in debates or making a fool of network news hosts, Hitchens often won an audience to his side by proving the fallibility of the person opposite him. Even in the few pieces, I’ve read, the topic he chooses is given a thorough lashing but by the end of it, I don’t feel like I’ve been brought anywhere. It isn’t that Mother Teresa is somehow undeserving of getting the Hitch treatment (no one calls it that FYI) and it is an important alternative analysis of popular history, but from my understanding that isn’t really why people read it. At the end of the day, Hitchens assumes the reader will concede to his muddied point on the grounds that he’s made someone look thoroughly stupid. So I picked up a book of his at Barnes&Noble. Just grabbed it off the shelf and bought it. This was a mistake. “And Yet…” is a series of essays published posthumously and chosen by virtue of not being selected for Hitchens' first (massive) compilation of Essays titled “Arguably”. This makes them second-rate essays by default. It’s obvious why. A good selection of these essays is book reviews. A.N. Wilson, Salman Rushdie, Mikhail Lermontov, Ian Fleming to name a few of the authors visited. Maybe Hitchens writes in-depth deep dives into books, but it seems that these are plot summaries followed by a hasty endorsement (and yes, I realize I’m no expert, but I always don’t have fans...or readers). The rest of the essays in “And Yet..” can be safely categorized as frivolous musings. Some of these observations are interesting, Ohio’s election numbers looking spotty in “Ohio’s Odd Numbers” or Hillary Clinton’s long history of PR follies in “The Case Against Hillary Clinton”. Others seem downright useless, like Obama’s likeness to a feline in (ready for it?) “Barack Obama, One Cool Cat” or how middle America has a diverse level of difficult to understand idiosyncrasies in “My Red-State Odyssey”. Ultimately though, most of the pieces in “And Yet…” are well-written thoughts that the reader is expected to enjoy because Christopher Hitchens wrote them in his Christopher Hitchens voice. It’s important to remember that Hitchens made his living as a writer, by definition there have to be pieces he wrote because he needed to collect a paycheck. It seems, with a few notable exceptions, that “And Yet…” is entirely composed of these types of tidbit essays. So it seems I need to give Hitchens another chance, but having only experienced his body of work in what is essentially a last ditch effort to profit off his peripheral thoughts, I can say I’m not yet sold on the “greatest polemic of our time”