Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was the title changed? Says "Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds Earn More Than Their Parents". Which is exactly what the article talks about... Though earning more than your parents was part of the American dream.
If you reword the title to "More than Half of 30-Year-Olds Earn More Than Their Parents" it sounds completely different.
Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
191–200 of 394 posts
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there are exceptions to the rule. Palo Alto, home to one of the biggest wealth booms in human history, is one of them.
This applies to any west coast market. You'll encounter it yourself if you ever shop for a home out here.
One would think it's a kind move to not tax them on the actual value of their property, but everything else gets more expensive too, so now a quesadilla is $15 at the corner store and they can barely afford to eat, and their options for other housing are in a different state. It's very strange to me that people aren't taxed out of their homes, since if they can no longer pay for anything else in the area, their quality of life goes down dramatically , in a community who mostly just wants them gone, fighting against the merciless tide of economic "progress" just because they grew up there (and sometimes not even).
If you can't afford the rent, you have no say. Property tax is a form of city rent, from my perspective. Why are the rules different? It seems like people just like to pretend they can still afford to be in a place and resist the change for as long as possible rather than accept the world around them.
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#193Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they are near retirement they could always reverse mortgage it. Our generation will not have that option.
Why won't we?
Rather, they would be stuck paying rent and hopefully have enough savings/Social Security/other income to cover it as long as they needed.
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
Got data on this? In my anecdotal experience price per square foot has shot up in urban places, which is where the jobs for young people tend to be concentrated.
"the inflation-adjusted price of new homes has been relatively stable since 1973 in a range between about $105 and $125 per square foot" However this is only new homes, not used homes. http://www.aei.org/publication/todays-new-homes-are-1000-squ...
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#197Compound 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.
Hacker news says: become a landlord! Yet amazingly compsci grads can't extrapolate this out and see that it cannot work at scale.
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, I hope you don't judge people for an accounting fiction. Any treasury bonds held by the federal government (for example, by the Social Security) is money the government owes to itself and has no real-world effect. The only part that matters is treasuries held by private investors. Less government spending in the past would mean lower government debt (owned by private investors) today. That's only real effect. Y…
I do not agree it has no real world effect. That money will need to be paid back to Social Security to pay people out. Its either paid by taxpayers, or by everyone through inflating our way out of the debt. Regardless, its an obligation to be paid.
Stop wasting taxpayer money and start using it to take care of citizens. That's what the role of government is.
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Up until we finally get our collective heads out of our asses and implement something like Basic Income.
I'm a supporter of basic income as an experiment but it is interesting to think about alternatives. Is basic income simply a stepping stone to some kind of Star Trek post-scarcity utopia where there is no concept of money or wealth at all? We survived the industrial revolution, is it not just human nature to adapt? One example I recently discussed with friends was the idea that most truck drivers may soon be out of j…
Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cherry on top is that our parents generation, who made more and had access to cheaper house, education, healthcare, etc., still barely saved for retirement. Unless, god forbid, your parents drop dead early, we are going to be stuck supporting them for a long time.
You'll be supporting all the old people through Social Security/Medicare anyway.