Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30 • Hacker News Board

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#121

Post by lawpoop » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 9:01 PM UTC

Jach wrote: post #83

rhino369 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not their fault we make less, but they should have personal responsibility for their own retirement, especially since the massive amount of growth in housing value and the stockmarket over their lifetime.

Social Security lifted the responsibility of saving for their own retirement. It's not much use to blame them for following incentives.

You make it sound as if before Social Security, people saved for retirement because they recognized they had to.

But of course they didn't-- because they didn't earn enough to save-- just like people nowadays.

Social Security is insurance against destitution in old age. It really doesn't function to take away any saving incentive. It just keeps old people from being homeless and starving.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB109520630433518093

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CEFDE1E38F...

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#122

Post by rubidium » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 9:03 PM UTC

hollerith wrote: post #108

rubidium wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I appreciate you pointing out a potential source of sampling error, the data accounts for this. See: https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-RD331_CHETTY_1...

How does that chart have any bearing on my previous comment? I am completely mystified by your reply.

You said "A better comparison would be 30-years-olds of today versus 30-year-olds (whether the 30-year-old has or goes on to have children or not) of the past."

This is exactly what they did and what the data shows. 50% of kids today make more than their parents, vs 90% of kids 60 years ago made more than their parents.

I feel like we're missing each other points though...

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#123

Post by thescriptkiddie » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 9:04 PM UTC

was_boring wrote: post #36

What makes me upset is that the economic realities do not match what is taught in large swaths of America. We are taught (at least in my community, and I am 30 now still living within 20 miles of where I grew up) that a very achievable ideal is a middle class existence with one parent working, and a small house in the suburbs. I am in the top 1% income earners for my generation and do not even come close to this. I t…

One thing to consider is that a growing portion of Americans (perhaps a majority, soon) do not want the small house in the suburbs with a white picket fence, 2.33 kids, a stay at home mom, and a 50 minute commute that the baby boomers' parents wanted. People are starting to remember that the reason we created cities is that city living is desirable, and they are willing to pay a premium for that.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#124

Post by soundwave106 » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

rqebmm wrote: post #18

I object to the subtitle "It becomes harder to reverse this trend" like it's an inexorable march without any possible cause. Just look at the difference in context between today and the 1972 reference date for the start of the study. Globalization and automation have taken a huge chunk out of the manufacturing sector, but the US economy has by now (at an aggregate) replaced those positions with knowledge/retail/servi…

The problem with Trump from that perspective is that Donald Trump is not exactly on the side of powerful unions, strong social safety nets, and taxing rich people. He did leverage anti-elite sentiment, but he did it unfortunately with walls and "keep the Muslims out", not unions, safety nets, and progressive taxation. Donald Trump as far as I know is largely anti-union, not on the side of more progressive taxation, and not on the side of strong safety nets.

I do agree that people are aware of the economic problems (hence the Sanders crossover in particular), I just think that identity politics right now is more powerful than economic politics in the United States. It seems like the issues that dominate the media headlines on "the left" and "the right" -- and, in fact, the angry rants on my Facebook feed, anecdotally, are very identity politics oriented. Unfortunately I think politicians take advantage of this. A classic example of this being North Carolina's "transgender bathroom" controversy. In my opinion, the provision that was far worse of that law was the aspect that limited individual cities from raising the minimum wage (economic politics). But it did not dominate the headlines, the identity politics did.

You are right that people are tired of Big Capital / globalist elites. They have reason to be. But to reverse this trend, we need stronger protection of the service industry (which is in effect the new manufacturing job) and we need stronger education systems to promote knowledge work. As long as identity politics obscures economic policies, I'm not sure how this is possible.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#125

Post by hollerith » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 9:13 PM UTC

rubidium wrote: post #122

hollerith wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that chart have any bearing on my previous comment? I am completely mystified by your reply.

You said "A better comparison would be 30-years-olds of today versus 30-year-olds (whether the 30-year-old has or goes on to have children or not) of the past." This is exactly what they did and what the data shows. 50% of kids today make more than their parents, vs 90% of kids 60 years ago made more than their parents. I feel like we're missing each other points though...

Do see any material difference between these next 2 statements?

"50% of people today make more than their parents"

"50% of people today make more than people a generation ago made."

If yes, do you see how the difference might be relevant to whether people today have it easier or harder than people in the previous generation?

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#126

Post by branchless » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 9:16 PM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #94

branchless wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life is not hard for the rentiers extracting labour for your right to exist in said apartment. Where is all your labour going? Food? No. Transport? No. Energy? No. Rent? Bingo. Why is this happening? Because we came off the gold standard and there is no limit to the expansion of fiat money, therefore it expands via mortgage lending to mop up all productivity gains. Get the women out to work! Land prices up. Efficienc…

A lot of us landlords barely cover the mortgage with how much we can charge in rent. We don't simply get to increase prices and expect tenants to keep paying.

But at the end of it you get a free house for hardly any labour. Yes you have to do a bit now and again but it's hardly a full time job that your tenants have to do to cover your mortgage.

I never understand why you guys are doing it if you don't gain. You are doing it because it is easy money, an easy way to extract labour.

What are you expecting anyway in terms of an ongoing income stream from this endeavor? It's very low skill, to borrow you need a pulse and a job. To administer you need basic numeracy. Hardly any labour required, certainly not skilled. Sounds like minimum wage for the basic admin required, so what, a few hours a month?

The only "value" here is the ability to borrow to exert monopoly control over other wage earners in order to force them to give you a portion of their labour. That is the main ingredient in the majority of cases. Yes we need a rental sector but as I said it's low skill and the rewards should reflect this instead of dividing society into have and have-nots.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#127

Post by branchless » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #97

branchless wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life is not hard for the rentiers extracting labour for your right to exist in said apartment. Where is all your labour going? Food? No. Transport? No. Energy? No. Rent? Bingo. Why is this happening? Because we came off the gold standard and there is no limit to the expansion of fiat money, therefore it expands via mortgage lending to mop up all productivity gains. Get the women out to work! Land prices up. Efficienc…

Gold standard has nothing to do with it. What money is, at a fundamental level, is a promise you can later redeem for real goods and services. Why there's so much mortgage and student loan debt follows directly from the demographic changes - the retiring generation needs promises to provide real goods and services (both directly through saving, and indirectly through pensions and the like), so capital markets seek ou…

No, banks are creating credit.

https://bankunderground.co.uk/2015/06/30/banks-are-not-inter...

By creating credit faster than the underlying wealth creation of an economy banks are appropriating real goods and services and the wealth generation later (or rather now as they lent for decades like this) and they walk off with the goods whilst we all drown in asset inflation.

I would agree that demographics played a big part. Boomers borrowed heavily as though the demogrpahic inversion were not a problem, and banks played along. Now we have the money supply collapse as we have more olds than young, meaning a collapse in credit supply which is a problem as the model requires that principal + interest is paid back which cannot happen unless more debit is issued into the face of loan expiry which destroys the credit but still requires the interest be paid from some other debt source.

Why else do we need constant QE and ZIRP? To encourage more borrowing to try and maintain the rate of credit creation to keep the money supply up as boomers pay down at their end of life.

What a nuts system and also a terrible one as all productivity gains are soaked up by adaptable pricing on land to capture all gains.

excited for my HN "you're submitting too fast" soon when anything about banks or rentiers is mentioned!

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#128

Post by shostack » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC

notadoc wrote: post #23

harryh wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price per square foot for housing has remained remarkably constant over time. People are spending more on houses than they used to because they are buying bigger houses.

That's simply not true, at least on the west coast in any reasonably active real estate market. It was never $1,455/sq ft like it is today in Palo Alto, nor $500/sq ft or even $200 per sq ft. This is a recent phenomena. Furthermore, price per square foot actually tends to increase nowadays on smaller homes, where you'll pay even more per square foot if you're trying to buy anything under 2000sq ft, and it gets really…

As houses become less affordable, there appears to be much more demand at the "entry level" range of $1-1.4M out here. So you have much higher $/sqft often times on a smaller home than on much larger, nicer homes at higher prices. In fact, those have been leveling off lately as there are only so many buyers at higher levels.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#129

Post by photogrammetry » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 9:28 PM UTC

branchless wrote: post #72

was_boring wrote: post #36

What makes me upset is that the economic realities do not match what is taught in large swaths of America. We are taught (at least in my community, and I am 30 now still living within 20 miles of where I grew up) that a very achievable ideal is a middle class existence with one parent working, and a small house in the suburbs. I am in the top 1% income earners for my generation and do not even come close to this. I t…

Life is not hard for the rentiers extracting labour for your right to exist in said apartment. Where is all your labour going? Food? No. Transport? No. Energy? No. Rent? Bingo. Why is this happening? Because we came off the gold standard and there is no limit to the expansion of fiat money, therefore it expands via mortgage lending to mop up all productivity gains. Get the women out to work! Land prices up. Efficienc…

You know, you could actually study why the gold standard is a terrible idea, rather than just fantasizing about it.

The financial trickery you're talking about is caused by deregulation and would happen on the gold standard just as often, but with probably far more disastrous consequences.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#130

Post by ainiriand » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 9:30 PM UTC

vijayr wrote: post #19

djb_hackernews wrote: post #10

Compound that with the percentage of income 30 year olds spend on housing, education, health care and child care compared to their parents and we have a recipe for disaster.

This is only going to get worse with software eating the world and automation of every possible task that we can. It has already started with companies like Amazon (in their warehouses) using robots extensively.

In my opinion, massive automation of tasks is going to cause a massive demand of programmers, developers and QA engineers, so no robot apocalypse yet. Basic income is not the solution to this problem because this is not a problem. The solution to this 'problem' is having a better education and making tech more accessible for everyone.