Millennials Scammed More than Seniors

Smashing Young Man said:
It's been a given since the dawn of personal computing that younger generations are more technically savvy than older generations, but I think if you plotted it out, you'd see we're on the downslope of a bell curve. Being able to poke at apps on a smartphone doesn't make one technically savvy, or any kind of savvy. Indeed, I'd say it has the opposite effect on mental and intellectual development.
Click to expand...

Two things made me tech savvy from my teenage years:

The internet wild west, and also back then computers weren't disposable, if I broke shit, I'd have to fix it myself.
 
NeoNemesis said:
I love how everyone is shitting on millennials in this thread. I would wager that 90% of the people on here are millennials.

Raise your hand if you were born after 1980....
Click to expand...

It has become cool to do. What does it really say about everyone else though if they find it fun or useful to bash a generation? Parents always think the kids are going to be the worst thing every, not sure why now it has become something needing research.

Sadly, I was born in 81. I grew up with the internet, 14.4k. Though I never had my own cell phone until I was 23. The other kids had pagers and I thought those were stupid at the time lol.
 
Darunion said:
It has become cool to do. What does it really say about everyone else though if they find it fun or useful to bash a generation? Parents always think the kids are going to be the worst thing every, not sure why now it has become something needing research.

Sadly, I was born in 81. I grew up with the internet, 14.4k. Though I never had my own cell phone until I was 23. The other kids had pagers and I thought those were stupid at the time lol.
Click to expand...

I am not sure its fair to say we grew up with internet at 14.4k ;). I was also born then and we had 14.4k on a good day once I hit *high school*. My first internet access was in the high school library on a text only "browser". I didnt have reliable dial up at home until my senior year of HS.

As far as cell phones, I didnt have one until 2009.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
Only $1 a day will feed thousands of big eyed puppies. You can spare $1 a day can't you?
3512872261_b418d1231f.jpg
Click to expand...


Yes. You have PayPal?

th.jpg




Nah. I'm an asshole. I don't send money to anyone. I've donated to local places.... $20 to support a single mother trying to work her way through school to better her life.

I only donate locally to places I really support. Fire dept., Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, etc..
 
The BBB reported this a couple years ago, so it's not surprising that things haven't changed. And according to their findings, apparently the higher educated you were, the more likely you were to fall victim to a scam.

We have this image that it's the elderly and uneducated rednecks who are the scam victims, but the conclusion was that they understand their position in life, and are less trusting because of that, whereas highly educated young people tend to have overconfidence in their own abilities and a belief that they couldn't possibly fooled, which makes them more susceptible.

As for the amount of money, it's not surprising. 80% of all wealth in this country is held by those 55 and older, and baby boomers alone control 70% of all disposable income. So it's only natural that they can afford to lose more, thus do lose more when they are scammed. This also means though that the $400 hurts the millennials far more than the $600 the boomers lose.
 
Nytegard said:
The BBB reported this a couple years ago, so it's not surprising that things haven't changed. And according to their findings, apparently the higher educated you were, the more likely you were to fall victim to a scam.

We have this image that it's the elderly and uneducated rednecks who are the scam victims, but the conclusion was that they understand their position in life, and are less trusting because of that, whereas highly educated young people tend to have overconfidence in their own abilities and a belief that they couldn't possibly fooled, which makes them more susceptible.

As for the amount of money, it's not surprising. 80% of all wealth in this country is held by those 55 and older, and baby boomers alone control 70% of all disposable income. So it's only natural that they can afford to lose more, thus do lose more when they are scammed. This also means though that the $400 hurts the millennials far more than the $600 the boomers lose.
Click to expand...


Don't worry about it, they won't live forever and you can't take it with you so ......
 
ZacharyS said:
The title of the post on Hard: "Millennials Scammed More than Seniors"

The title of the post in the article: "More millennials reported losing money to scam in 2017 than senior citizens"

I mean I know its being pedantic but you completely changed the the initial reaction readers would get from the article by misrepresenting the title.
Click to expand...
True, it's just that more millennials realize the got scammed where as senior citizens are still waiting for that guy to show up with their prize.
 
lcpiper said:
Don't worry about it, they won't live forever and you can't take it with you so ......
Click to expand...

So you dump the estate tax and create a landed aristocracy, turning into a nepotic empire.

Also based on my admittedly anecdotal evidence, many seniors are afraid to admit they don't know, or where taken advantage of. They don't want to look stupid, and fair enough who would... other than many Millennials.
 
Zero sympathy honestly..there is zero excuse for anyone younger than Gen X to not be fully computer literate.
 
ZacharyS said:
The title of the post on Hard: "Millennials Scammed More than Seniors"

The title of the post in the article: "More millennials reported losing money to scam in 2017 than senior citizens"

I mean I know its being pedantic but you completely changed the the initial reaction readers would get from the article by misrepresenting the title.
Click to expand...

"Millennials scammed more than seniors" misrepresents, "More millenials report losing money to scam [...] than seniors"? I don't see it.

Millennials were scammed on a more frequent basis, however the dollar losses were less in total. Frequency =/= severity.
 
The FTC data are confusing me because the numbers don't align with the conclusions and they are bracketing off the age groups in strange ways ("older" people would normally include more than 70+, at least retirees usually, and even then 70+ comprises 16% of the reports instead of 18%. "Millenials" is not well defined, but it would generally include the <19 bracket and stretching it all the way to 39 is a fairly loose interpretation of that generation's span. Again, even using the brackets they constructed of 20-29 is only 13% not 40%).

Regardless, my opinion is that a lot of "scams" being reported isn't actually people being actively scammed and that's part of the reason for the numbers. We should be provided with median losses, not mean losses, since median averages are resistant to outliers. We don't know, for example, if 100 of these people lost a million dollars and no one else lost anything or if everyone lost around 200 bucks. Based on the people I've talked to, they are getting a ton of new cold calls from "scam likely" numbers and etc. and if they don't pay attention and answer the phone a lot of times they get hit with a cell phone charge for the connection even if they don't fall for whatever bullshit is being said on the other line. I'm willing to bet a ton of those younger users would be calling in and reporting that as a "scam" and be pretty annoyed about it even if they didn't actually get "scammed" in the traditional sense.
 
Kids are retards. People are considered kids longer. Ergo, they are retards well into the work force, now.
 
I can't seem to find the article now, but I've read that Millennials have higher instances of credit card fraud because they were more likely to have their CC information stored in several apps compared to other demographics.
 
Wouldn't it just be easier to euthanize the current and the next 3 generations or so.....? Way too much stupid is coming if we dont.....:eek:
 
Fixall said:
I can't seem to find the article now, but I've read that Millennials have higher instances of credit card fraud because they were more likely to have their CC information stored in several apps compared to other demographics.
Click to expand...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyp...l-victim-to-tax-financial-scams/#df89d0a53536

Different scams for different generations. The fact that they grew up with social media where they share everything doesn't really help in the identity theft arena. E.g. Just last week, my sister almost fell for the virtual kidnapping scam. (Basically, someone calls you and says they've kidnapped a loved one who happens to not live in the area, and demands money within half an hour or such, or else they claim they'll kill the person, or if you call 9-1-1, they'll kill the person. It's all a hoax though.) And all this stuff is gathered from information you put online.
 
bugleyman said:
While interesting, this data is absolutely useless for drawing conclusions about fraud in the population as a whole. The problem is that this data is about fraud reported by consumers. There is any number of reasons this is problematic. For example, older folks may be both less aware if they've been victimized, or less forthcoming about having been victimized if they are aware. The fact is we just don't know.
Click to expand...

Came here to say this.

My guess is there are a ton of seniors who get scammed that don't report it.

I am also a millennial, so there's that...
 
I think technology is somewhat to blame for this. Phones and tablets today are very simple to use and are what today's youth are exposed to. Most aren't really exposed to computers until much later in life (maybe in their teens or older), unlike kids who may have grown up with with the computer being the only source of 'internet' type media in the house.

I've been over to people's houses to fix their computer and their kids have 0 clue as to how to even really get into simple windows settings. This lack of knowledge is actually an interesting phenomenon where a kid may know more about phones/tablets than their parents but are clueless about computers. This works on the opposite end of the spectrum too as seniors don't really understand technology altogether.

Whether the PC is dying out is another topic in itself but who knows where this could all go in 20 years. But I think overall, this attributes to a rampant amount of people thinking that browser add-ons are just "apps" and pay no mind to installing a bunch of them, much like how toolbar bloat was rampant back in the early 2000s. This leads to more chances of being scammed by not knowing what processes are running in the background or things they've installed.
 
Aireoth said:
25scy0.jpg
Click to expand...

Hey if CNN can get away with manipulating titles to make them click bait...

Dekoth-E- said:
Zero sympathy honestly..there is zero excuse for anyone younger than Gen X to not be fully computer literate.
Click to expand...

Fully computer literate does not include conscious about computer security and knowing how to detect and avoid scams. You're making an overly broad assumption here and holding the "masses" to a standard that is more aligned to what you should hold a professional to.

Also not all fraud/scams are computer related which if you had read the article you would know. In fact the #1 fraud listed in TFA was debt collection which is typically done with harassing phone calls. One of the types of #2 was credit card fraud. Tell me how being fully computer literate lets you avoid credit card fraud when someone installs a skimmer behind the gas pump and theres no visual evidence the skimmer was installed? Or when they use a card # generator to get your #?
 
kju1 said:
Hey if CNN can get away with manipulating titles to make them click bait...



Fully computer literate does not include conscious about computer security and knowing how to detect and avoid scams. You're making an overly broad assumption here and holding the "masses" to a standard that is more aligned to what you should hold a professional to.

Also not all fraud/scams are computer related which if you had read the article you would know. In fact the #1 fraud listed in TFA was debt collection which is typically done with harassing phone calls. One of the types of #2 was credit card fraud. Tell me how being fully computer literate lets you avoid credit card fraud when someone installs a skimmer behind the gas pump and theres no visual evidence the skimmer was installed? Or when they use a card # generator to get your #?
Click to expand...

I was obviously referring to computer related things, and including debt collection as you can easily google information. I'm surprised I have to explain that we live in the age of information and ignorance is no longer an excuse. As for credit card skimmers..perhaps try not going to skeezy gas stations to avoid the in pump skimmers and use your eyes and fingers for the rest. That said I'll gladly agree that at least this particular problem is a little more complex which is why it was pretty obviously not part of my point.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
I was obviously referring to computer related things, and including debt collection as you can easily google information. I'm surprised I have to explain that we live in the age of information and ignorance is no longer an excuse. As for credit card skimmers..perhaps try not going to skeezy gas stations to avoid the in pump skimmers and use your eyes and fingers for the rest. That said I'll gladly agree that at least this particular problem is a little more complex which is why it was pretty obviously not part of my point.
Click to expand...

And yet the TFA is talking about all types of fraud and you chose one segment. Regardless you didnt address my point that computer literacy does not equate to a good computer security knowledge NOR does being computer literate prevent you from being susceptible to scams like social engineering. I am going to presume that since you are here you have an above average understanding of technology. Do not assume that the average person has that same level of knowledge or experience. We see this shit all the time. The average person doesnt. We attend conferences that talk about this shit. The average person doesnt.

There is a huge difference between being a professional in the field and being someone that uses the technology. Do not expect professional levels of awareness from a layman.

Edit: Also as for the skimmer...I will let Costco know that you think their gas station is skeezy. Meanwhile I will also upgrade my eyes and fingers to better detect when an employee has put a skimmer on a station and put the verification tape over the device to make it look legit.
 
kju1 said:
And yet the TFA is talking about all types of fraud and you chose one segment. Regardless you didnt address my point that computer literacy does not equate to a good computer security knowledge NOR does being computer literate prevent you from being susceptible to scams like social engineering. I am going to presume that since you are here you have an above average understanding of technology. Do not assume that the average person has that same level of knowledge or experience. We see this shit all the time. The average person doesnt. We attend conferences that talk about this shit. The average person doesnt.

There is a huge difference between being a professional in the field and being someone that uses the technology. Do not expect professional levels of awareness from a layman.

Edit: Also as for the skimmer...I will let Costco know that you think their gas station is skeezy. Meanwhile I will also upgrade my eyes and fingers to better detect when an employee has put a skimmer on a station and put the verification tape over the device to make it look legit.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I disagree entirely on computer literacy. Yes good computer literacy equates to good security from an end user perspective as being reasonably knowledgeable absolutely protects you against 99% of the major scams that have been around for decades. Hell being able to basically use decent fucking common sense and think "Does this sound too good to be true? And Googling it" makes you invulnerable to at least 80% of the scams. So yes if you fall for 99% of the scams, including social engineering, you are in fact a moron and have no excuse if you are under the age of 40. You don't need to know how to lock down a PC like I do to have good end user security knowledge. You simply need to have a brain, and know how to use google. It really isn't hard.
 
I call bs on “Millennials” being born after 1980....

It should be around 1990, most everyone I’ve met who was born before 1990 seems to have the same “traits” that the generation before them had on all the websites I’ve checked.

I was born in 82 and can’t stand the people who take the “millenials” traits to heart. Who here was born before the 1990s and actually align themselves with those viewpoints?
 
kju1 said:
I am ok with stupid. Stupid can usually be fixed with education/training. Only about 1% or so of the populace is incapable of learning. note the capable part.

What I cant stand is emotional immaturity which is what these kids have. Thats much harder, if not impossible, to fix.
Click to expand...

Read a report somewhere that the official "End of adolescence" was being revised by some medical professionals to take place at age 25. due to the number of young adults that were still breastfeeding... er, not living independently.
WTF?

I've read the reports that it just makes more sense in this day and age due to the high cost of living, different social dynamics, etc. etc. But there is a difference between living with your parents, holding down a job and paying rent to them, and being a giant man-child that lives in the basement and has mom bring you hot pockets forever. which seems to be the norm now.

I had been in the Army for 6 years by Age 25, my Dad dropped out of High School after the 9th grade to work, guess that makes me a slacker for leaving home at 18, but damn, 25?
 
Last edited:
Because of Peer Pressuring crusades on Social Media, it's easier to emotionally blackmail Millennials. The risk of social shaming inhibits them against thinking critically when confronted with a potential scammer. Since this behavior is likely habit forming, its in play even when there is no risk of public scrutiny.
 
bugleyman said:
While interesting, this data is absolutely useless for drawing conclusions about fraud in the population as a whole. The problem is that this data is about fraud reported by consumers. ...
Click to expand...
I totally agree! My father in law has fallen for just about any of these phone calls trying to sell him stuff.
Last autumn he had contracts with like four different phone providers and two power companies. On top of that he had a couple of credit cards running, each charging a hefty interest on fairly small amounts of money.
He's totally unaware of what companies he'd signed with and just pay any bills coming in.
No my wife has taken over the practicalities involved and cut his costs significantly!
 
TwistedAegis said:
"Millennials scammed more than seniors" misrepresents, "More millenials report losing money to scam [...] than seniors"? I don't see it.

Millennials were scammed on a more frequent basis, however the dollar losses were less in total. Frequency =/= severity.
Click to expand...

It is inaccurate to draw the conclusion that any group was actually scammed more than any other group from this data set because it is purely based on self reporting. Further, this is coming from the FTC, which frankly is not exactly very trustworthy lately. Just looking at how they presented their data in general shows there is huge bias there. This dataset had one purpose: to further the divide between "millenials" and "non-millenials" and you guys took the bait like it was the lubed up dildo.
 
ZacharyS said:
It is inaccurate to draw the conclusion that any group was actually scammed more than any other group from this data set because it is purely based on self reporting. Further, this is coming from the FTC, which frankly is not exactly very trustworthy lately. Just looking at how they presented their data in general shows there is huge bias there. This dataset had one purpose: to further the divide between "millenials" and "non-millenials" and you guys took the bait like it was the lubed up dildo.
Click to expand...

Your analogy might be a bit...unusual, but your'e right: This data is being badly misconstrued, and that's hardly accidental. This is just another way to divide and conquer.
 
NeoNemesis said:
I said 90%, not 100% I'm well aware that there are a number of forum members that were born before 1980.
Click to expand...

but you don't actually know this, your pulling numbers out of your ass, to justify your argument.

Born in 1965, btw,
 
motomonkey said:
but you don't actually know this, your pulling numbers out of your ass, to justify your argument.

Born in 1965, btw,
Click to expand...

Holy fuck you guys take shit too literally. I didn't say 87.45232% of HardOCP users were millennials. I made an exaggerated statement to emphasize the fact that a large portion of users on this forum are complaining about a generation which they are themselves a part of.
 
next-Jin said:
I call bs on “Millennials” being born after 1980....

It should be around 1990, most everyone I’ve met who was born before 1990 seems to have the same “traits” that the generation before them had on all the websites I’ve checked.

I was born in 82 and can’t stand the people who take the “millenials” traits to heart. Who here was born before the 1990s and actually align themselves with those viewpoints?
Click to expand...
I'm generally pretty confident in my reading comprehension, but I'm not sure how to read this question. What do you mean by taking the traits to heart, or aligning with those viewpoints?

fwiw, I was born in 90, and I consider myself somewhat competent and very intelligent. I'm however socially awkward (I have difficulty remembering names unless I have frequent interactions, and I get nervous when talking face to face for no reason). I'm pretty much the mirror image of my brother who is two years older than me, socially competent, but mistaken by default (adhd, so he has to focus hard on what he is doing or he will make a mistake. I may also have some adhd, but it doesn't show so much as in him. I usually recognize when I'm about to do something dumb and correct myself beforehand, probably because I'm ocd, whereas he seems incapable of that at times).

Anyway, whatever disorders I may or may not have, I haven't been scammed afaik. I might have been taken advantage of on occasion, but I blame my lack of experience more than anything, and don't hold it against anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top