Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

171–180 of 394 posts

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

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll be supporting all the old people through Social Security/Medicare anyway.

I don't judge people who didn't or couldn't save enough for retirement and are living on SS and Medicare exclusively. I like Socialist safety nets of those sorts, and am happy to pay into them. One day I will be old and sick too. We all will be, except those who die early. I judge you if you didn't hold your government representatives accountable for excessive discretionary spending, which was borrowed out of Social…

Well said. Critics rarely consider the potential personal benefit of SS in the future. Now, it's not a perfect system, but it has its upsides.

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

#172
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many truck drivers own their own trucks and contract for the carriers so those are the ones that could buy self-driving trucks. Regarding pricing I'm not so sure. If you run a trucking company and contract out driving to individual drivers that own their own vehicles you are paying for the service to get the cargo to its destination, you aren't paying for a person as much as a service. I do agree though that in this…

> Many truck drivers own their own trucks and contract for the carriers so those are the ones that could buy self-driving trucks Except they probably couldn't, because the carriers are going to lease self-driving trucks from specialized agencies that will exist exactly for that purpose, as they won't want the administrative costs of dealing with individual owners (which makes some sense when it's an owner/operator as…

Somebody has to make those leasing agencies. That will create some jobs, but it is easy to see how 1 person can easily handle 3 fully automated trucks even without the typical logistics that big companies bring to the table. If this cost reduction causes 3x as much stuff to be shipped it won't be a short term problem, but I find that unlikely.

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

#173
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many truck drivers own their own trucks and contract for the carriers so those are the ones that could buy self-driving trucks. Regarding pricing I'm not so sure. If you run a trucking company and contract out driving to individual drivers that own their own vehicles you are paying for the service to get the cargo to its destination, you aren't paying for a person as much as a service. I do agree though that in this…

> Many truck drivers own their own trucks and contract for the carriers so those are the ones that could buy self-driving trucks Except they probably couldn't, because the carriers are going to lease self-driving trucks from specialized agencies that will exist exactly for that purpose, as they won't want the administrative costs of dealing with individual owners (which makes some sense when it's an owner/operator as…

So the opportunity for the current owner/operators is to pool their resources and become the specialized self-driving truck agency.

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

#174
post #79
post #70

Well. I guess the "No Politics week" wasn't going to last. This goes to the core of socialized healthcare, Social Security, Universal Basic Income, and the dismantling ofsaid systems that exist. The Baby boomers pulled the ladder up when they climbed up, and left us all in the lurch paying for them. You know, "Get the government outta my life, but dont you dare touch my medicare".

> I guess the "No Politics week" wasn't going to last. We ended it early for reasons I explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13131251 .

Ah. I must have missed that.

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

#175
post #90
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Up until we finally get our collective heads out of our asses and implement something like Basic Income.

That isn't going to happen easily. My experience: I've talked about this to many people (highly educated, smart people) - most of them are adamant on the idea that human beings absolutely have to work to deserve anything, even food and water. This might very well be anecdotal, but very few people get ideas like Basic Income intuitively. It would likely take tremendous amount to first make people understand, then acce…

People feel a natural obligation to be rewarded for their work. "Don't work, don't eat". The fact is, giving people a small income makes them inherently lazy. Lazy people don't like to work, but they will do just enough to get by, so if you give them a min amount of $, they'll do nothing. Others will look at that and say, "How come they get money for being lazy?" It actually acts as demotivation for people who would work some. The guy who isn't making much to begin with isn't rewarded - it only makes his labor less valuable. Does it make him strive harder to gain opportunity? Not really. People who have tried multiple times to jump over the hurdles in their economic careers won't feel that obligation to continue to jump if they have their precious safety net.

Is a safety net nice? Sure, but as much as it's nice, I know full well I wouldn't be sending out resumes or even looking for what I should be doing if I didn't feel some obligation to work, whatever that be from.

The idea of giving people a flat income sounds nice in theory, but that's all it is: in theory. Practically, I believe it fails to account for the basics of human nature after that point, which is why the idea wouldn't work in practice. That doesn't mean it isn't humanitarian, which is where I guess it shines for some people. After all, it's nice to think everyone is taken care of, much like social medical plans. But in both cases (income and medicare) I think it's the reverse solution to the problem: It's trying to raise people up rather than lowering the bar. Vague analogy, sorry, but maybe it makes sense?

>> I'm all for doing work, but never understood worship of hard work for hard work's sake.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, so let me try to answer this in a general way, for the sake of practice if nothing else. Personally, I view the body as being made to do work. It's very functional, well designed "equipment" - or at least better for all-purpose usage than anything humanity has ever created. Some people feel like they wouldn't be fulfilling their purpose without work. They wouldn't feel complete I guess. Notably, it is a personality-type thing, as there are types of people who enjoy doing much more than thinking, but everyone enjoys doing something, even if not work related. We'd get bored otherwise. Some people naturally associate the doing of things with working for a living. Some people find work to be therapeutic.

I'm rambling alot here trying to toss out ideas. Maybe I already answered the question in my feeble way.

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

#176

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…

You must be exaggerating or living in New York/San Fran. Here in the midwest is is very reasonable for a top 20% income for 30 yr old age bracket to have only one parent work. If you're top 1% you can definitely afford a house in the suburbs and have one parent stay home.

In more affordable places are there a lot of jobs that would put you in that 20%?

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

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All humans have a psychological need to be needed. The current way to best feel this is to provide income for yourself and your family through work, and provide a service for your employer. This is extremely satisfying for a majority of people. Take away work and these two things collapse. To get UBI to work, we need a new way for people to feel needed.

I disagree entirely that work is the best way to feel needed, and that feeling needed is necessary. I work because I have to, not because I care about working. If I didn't have to work, I wouldn't. I would spend time on personal projects and enjoying my life with my friends. Relationships are far better than work for "feeling needed". To be honest though, I don't care about being needed. I don't need to exist. I like…

Yep, +1000. This is apparently very hard to grasp for some, or they just really love working (which I have my own doubts about). It's crazy to me that in this age of bounty, everyone is positively required to sell at least 40 hours per week of their time or face social exile, starvation, homelessness, etc.

I think another aspect of it is that people want it to feel fair, and that's a complicated thing. It doesn't take much hunting to find videos of someone chastising another customer at Walmart for paying with a government assistance card. We have this strange animosity toward anyone we deem doesn't work as hard as we do for the same result. Well, it's literally true that some people in this country make 1000x what others make while working less hours, doing less "hard" labor. Personally, construction, food service, mechanical maintenance, etc work much harder than I do, even though they might not have a clue how to do what I do (I would also likely suck at their job initially).

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

#178
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30 year olds are buying larger houses because typically those are the only options. It comes down to NIMBY local regulation enacted by the boomers with their FU I got mine attitude. Municipalities enforce size restrictions, ie you can't build too small, in order to ensure there isn't housing poor folk can afford. They enact parcel size restrictions which means a piece of land that could have 20 homes on it can only f…

My uncle lives in an area where a new house must be on a minimum sized lot of 1 acre. A nearby area requires 5 acres for a new house! I'd never heard of those kinds of restrictions before.

We have that here in Portland, it's the urban growth boundry. To control the growth of sprawling suburbs and encourage higher density construction, outside the boundary you cannot get sewer service and so must build on a 1+ acre lot with a septic field. It works pretty well for us. I'm sitting less than 100 feet from our boundary right now (on the inside), and just the other side is acres and acres of open farmland.

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

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I am in the top 1% income earners for my generation and do not even come close to this. what? how is that even possible? what are your debts? how long have you been in the top 1%? something doesnt add up. most of the people I know are making way more than their parents, and are able to move out of big metro areas and live in the suburbs just fine.

The tech sector is this nice bubble where we've seen lots of economic prosperity. If you look at the statistics you'll see that's not the case for a large swath of America.

Top 1% of income for a 30 year old (in the USA, in 2016) is, per this calculator, $188,000.

https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-age-calculator/

In overwhelmingly most parts of the country, that's plenty of money to own a house and support a family.

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

#180
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There will be more demand for a short while but a lot of that will also be automated away. Think about a period of 100 years aka your children and grandchildren. Not the coming 3 years as we programmers tend to do. Even if we will have another AI winter after this spring and summer; 100 years gives enough time for another spring and summer. Not only can not everyone do everything; many people cannot learn programming and QA. I would say by far most will not be able to. That is a difference with the industrial revolution; something like a horse carriage to bus driver transition is vastly different than a truck driver to a dev.

Sure for jobs like lawyer or doctor to programmer you can imagine but there are not many compared to physical labour anyway.

For both reasons, I do not see your opinion happening in the 100 year and after span. Maybe over the coming 10 but not 100. Wether I like it or not, my brain does not get over the choice of letting people perish, basic income or boycotting the future. Someone like Trump can bring jobs by just banning robots ; for instance by changing regulations so they cannot drive vehicles on public roads. But that would pretty quickly (again look at 100 year spans) lead to the US being no longer competitive on the world market for those particular (related) services.

Post reply on HN