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

#231

Post by gragas » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 2:37 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #222

gragas wrote: 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.

Economic growth is not 0. So, really it says that 1/2 the population is flat our worse off. Further, a rising tide lifts all boats is a complitly false analogy, and anyone using that phrase to talk about the economy is lying.

>Economic growth is not 0.

The numbers are in real USD, not nominal. So in reality, it's a huge fallacy to say that we're so much worse off that in the 1970s. We're almost exactly the same as the 1970s.

The main difference to point out here is that the 1970s 30-year-olds made much more real USD than their parents' generation, while 30-year-olds today are making almost exactly the same. Just because income isn't growing as much doesn't mean the 30-year-olds today are worse off.

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

#232

Post by was_boring » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 2:38 AM UTC

rubidium wrote: post #51

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…

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.

I live about 30-40 miles outside of D.C. The only people I know who have a house earn significantly more, or are dual income top-tier earning households.

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

#233

Post by gragas » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 2:40 AM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #219

gragas wrote: 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.

Have you ever noticed that the only people who talk about fake news all the time are the people who lost nearly all of the recent elections?

"Don't worry, the reason we lost is because everyone who's on the other side is really stupid and believes fake news"

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

#234

Post by mattlevan » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 2:41 AM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #208

Cyph0n wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Critics definitely consider the personal benefit. The problem is that they don't trust that it'll actually be there, or that it's a system that actually can work as it has been designed. For example, in the 80 years that it's been in effect, the OASDI tax rate has increased…

Good points and very interesting, thanks.

Once again, getting the state involved just makes things messy. Let people be responsible for their own well-being as they age. Without safety nets, people tend to be much more cautious and thoughtful when spending. Plus, people who are fit to raise smart and healthy children will also be more apt to do so, which is a must for any society!

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

#235

Post by eli_gottlieb » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 2:42 AM UTC

vijayr wrote: post #90

eridius wrote: 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…

Excuse me? I don't work because I think I should have to. I work despite that. I work so other people can someday benefit from, you know, FULLY AUTOMATED GAY SPACE LUXURY COMMUNISM and all that.

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

#236

Post by branchless » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 2:46 AM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #170

branchless wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Credit is money - there's literally no distinction between the two. Precious metal currencies are only money because it takes way less systemic trust to believe that the bearer of precious metal coins can get things for them later. Gold-backed paper currencies are an interesting intermediate, basically adding trust that you can exchange them for the actual metal at banks.

Credit costs nothing to produce. Expansion can cover infinite productivity gains to appropriate for the usurers/rentiers.

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

#237

Post by chimeracoder » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 2:47 AM UTC

_23sd wrote: post #226

chimeracoder wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Truck driver is probably the first job to disappear, this is also the #1 job in about 30 states. That's not really true. This misconception came about from an NPR journalist who drew an infographic that appeared to show that truck drivers were the most common job in each state[0]. In reality, that infographic used BLS data - the BLS subdivides other professions to provide more granularity. In other words, all that…

>If we look at data that is consistently disaggregated into the most detailed nonfarm occupations, retail salesperson is the most common job in 42 states. In four other states (Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland and Vermont), cashier is the biggest occupation. Fast-food worker is tops in two states: Kentucky and Ohio. Wow, seems like worse news to me. The number of self-driving trucks on the road today is probably low to z…

> Wow, seems like worse news to me. The number of self-driving trucks on the road today is probably low to zero, but the number of non-grocery retail stores closing every year, largely due to competition from Amazon (but also stagnant wages keeping demand low), is clearly in the thousands

Maybe, but clearly the net effect is positive, because unemployment has fallen by half since 2010, and is in fact currently below NAIRU levels[0]. So every job that has been lost has been replaced by more than one, on average.

(Before someone says "yes, but that's because the labor force participation rate has fallen" - that's another common remark that misses the point altogether. The economy has expanded during this timeframe, and while labor participation is a secondary concern, it's not a proximate one. If people are able to afford the choice not to work during a period of time in which the economy has expanded, that's unambiguously a good thing, even if it's not always the best case. Increasing participation in the labor force is often a goal, but not in and of its own sake. Unlike controlling excess unemployment or preventing GDP contraction, which are basically always bad, a drop in labor force participation is a more ambiguous signal of economic health).

[0] In other words, one could actually make the argument that unemployment is currently too low - although this would be a bit of a moot point, as it's still within measurement error of the NAIRU and has been for the last 13 months.

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

#238

Post by johngalt » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 2:57 AM 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...

Everyone as a parent, but not everyone has a child. In both instances they are comparing "parents" a subset of the population. To "people" the total population.

Economic pressures can affect the decision to have children. Especially once birth control became widespread.

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

#239

Post by adolph » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 2:57 AM UTC

ainiriand wrote: post #130

vijayr wrote: 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.

Massive automation of tasks performed by humans is pretty depressing because it indicates that some combination of technology focus/funding can't aim higher than what people are doing already.

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

#240

Post by mattlevan » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 3:05 AM UTC

ainiriand wrote: post #137

vijayr wrote: 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…

Basic income should be the solution we, as an organized group, give to all individuals to be able to express themselves. All human beings have basic needs and the State have to provide this. The State here is the expression of the will of the population. Do not take the State as something socialist or communist, taking from someone and giving it to someone for free; no,this is provided by us, the population, for us,…

This is a common argument for basic income and, even though you say "Do not take the State as something socialist or communist", your argument is the same as it is for socialism and communism.

You say, "Do not take the State as something socialist or communist, taking from someone and giving it to someone for free; no, this is provided by us, the population, for us, the population."

---

Here's the problem.

Can you think about what, exactly, "the population" is? Is it tangible? Is it a singular physical entity?

The answer is no, "the population" is merely a collection of individuals! Individuals, of course, exist-- they are tangible, singular, physical entities. You are one. I am one. Individuals exist.

Populations, on the other hand, are abstractions.

My point is this: when an abstraction needs to be represented, it cannot do so itself. In this case, individuals are required to represent the population because, well, individuals are the only ones with the actual ability to do so.

Under your proposed system in which the State provides basic income to each and every individual, who decides how much each is given? Who will be the ones to actually control the means of production; and who will be the ones to actually control distribution of goods? Only some will.

If you think democracy as it exists today already performs poorly in representing the ENTIRE population (i.e., representing each individual fully to their individual desires) (think of the surprising amount of people who feel conned by the election results), then just imagine the extent by which people will likely feel when the State is responsible for just about E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G in E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E-'-S life!