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

Post by mjevans » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 3:08 AM UTC

shostack wrote: post #194

mac01021 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why won't we?

Because the increasing trend is that it is not financially viable for younger families to buy a home. So they would thus not have a mortgage to reverse in the first place. Rather, they would be stuck paying rent and hopefully have enough savings/Social Security/other income to cover it as long as they needed.

Post by randomdata » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 3:13 AM UTC

dlss wrote: post #230

mywittyname wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends entirely on the underlying distribution of the data. In your example, the distributions are not at all similar, so it makes sense that you can't compare medians or averages between those populations. I suspect that the distribution of incomes in the US remains fairly similar to what it was 40 years ago. Thus, if the median has remained the same, then the average probably also has.

> I suspect that the distribution of incomes in the US remains fairly similar to what it was 40 years ago. Thus, if the median has remained the same, then the average probably also has. If the distribution of income had gone unchanged, the spread of wealth would also be unchanged. But it has changed, see http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/ or the source of your choice. If the distribution of income had gone unch…

Post by pasquinelli » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 3:17 AM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #65

crdoconnor wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the 0.1% can successfully convince people to blame their grandparents and magical robots for stealing all of the country's wealth then this trend is likely to continue.

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.

Post by branchless » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 3:23 AM UTC

seanp2k2 wrote: post #197

branchless wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker news says: become a landlord! Yet amazingly compsci grads can't extrapolate this out and see that it cannot work at scale.

Hey, distributed systems is hard. The network is reliable // the market is rational.

Post by coroutines » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 3:34 AM UTC

mattlevan wrote: post #234

chimeracoder wrote: post #208

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. 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!