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

211–220 of 394 posts

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

#211
post #120

Could my parents afford an iPhone? No of course not. Among many other things. $$$ isn't the only quality of life indicator. When doing this calculation, you of course adjust for these things. an iPhone would cost billions of dollars in 1970. Is that the figure we should use? Probably not. But it means that these calculations are largely arbitrary since we don't know the true value of an iPhone to a person in 1970.

Who cares about iPhones? They could afford education, healthcare and housing. These calculations are far from arbitrary. We have a reasonable idea of the sorts of things that people need to live a decent life, and these things have gotten more expensive. (Ok, so another commenter pointed out that maybe housing isn't as expensive as it's made out to be, but it's certainly not cheaper.)

iPhones were just an example =)

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

#213
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.

> I'd never heard of those kinds of restrictions before

They used to go by the name of Jim Crow.

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

#215

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…

>I like when my existence is appreciated by someone else, but my happiness and mental wellbeing is not predicated on that.

You might believe that but a lot of history and medical studies on retirees says otherwise.

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20130813-the-dark-side-of-t...

https://hbr.org/2016/10/youre-likely-to-live-longer-if-you-r...

http://www.reviewjournal.com/life/transition-retirement-can-...

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

#216
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> People feel a natural obligation to be rewarded for their work ...

If people are actively demotivated by seeing others idle and surviving, who cares? Provided that we as a society can afford basic income (including after it's been established and it's having various impacts on the workforce), it's no loss if people stop working. And there's only so much basic income could ever give you; it'll make the necessities of life free (or rather paid for), but if you want things beyond necessities (including any positional good), you'd still want to look for work.

> Is a safety net nice? ...

If we can afford to provide a basic income, you don't need to work -- unless the economy goes so pear-shaped that we stop being able to afford a basic income. (And this seems unlikely, since automated factories won't be offered a basic income. If anything, basic income might increase consumer demand...)

> The idea of giving people a flat income ...

I'd emphasize that this income will grow if you work -- and that it won't be enough to buy positional goods, by definition. You can keep body and soul together on a basic income, but to live better you'll have to find a way to engage with the economy. (And the presence of a hammock-grade safety net will give you more options, not fewer. Live on oatmeal and vegetables, and buy stock with your food savings; or work for years on a project that might or might not pay off.)

> I'm not sure what you mean by this ...

"Made to do work" could mean any number of things. Tribal warfare, hunting, gathering, and social climbing are certainly things humanity has evolved to do; subsistence farming, artisanal crafts, and management are close enough that we're pretty good at them; but factory work, we're just plain not adapted to. Keeping strict schedules, doing small parts of a large whole, and repeating a single task for a long period of time: these are learned skills at best for humanity, and that's why such jobs get automated.

> Some people feel like they wouldn't be fulfilling their purpose ...

They can find jobs and keep working. UBI isn't the end of employment, just the provision of support. Think of it as reverting to the economic structure of the classical world or the American South, except that this time the only slaves are robots.

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

#217
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.

You are assuming you cannot be automated away, why?

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

#218
Suppose 30-year-olds make exactly the same as their parents did at 30. Then we would expect that barely half of 30-year-olds earn more than their parents did at 30.

This title is stupid. It implies "oh hur dur the economy is so bad" when in reality it says nothing.

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

#219
post #218

Suppose 30-year-olds make exactly the same as their parents did at 30. Then we would expect that barely half of 30-year-olds earn more than their parents did at 30. This title is stupid. It implies "oh hur dur the economy is so bad" when in reality it says nothing.

Wow! Most 30-year-olds are making more than their parents did at the same age!

---

I'm more worried about the near universal editorializing of real news than the less common totally fake variety.

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

#220
post #173

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 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.

Sounds like a union. Do you do them anymore in the US?
Post reply on HN