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

#271

Post by BuckRogers » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 5:17 AM UTC

travi5 wrote: post #268

ryhamz wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medicare is fine, some social security facets are fine, such as disability. Social security as a general retirement plan? Shitty program. What it should be AT MOST: mandated investment in a retirement account that you can't touch. Although I would prefer to not even have policy here at all. This is only necessary because people are by and large shit with money and will not save without being forced to. What is is: ta…

The disability program is hurting society. You can get disability for having autism. Once they are on it, they have incentives to stay on it forever. If they make even one dollar working they lose it all, so they make extra cash under the table through committing fraud, selling drugs, etc. No one can sue them and take it away, so they do things like go without insurance, buy things on credit with no intent to pay, ti…

Seconded. That stood out to me too in his post. Disability seems to be widely abused in the western world. I'm for social welfare, but I'm not for mismanagement and abuse. Disability as it exists today is a concern that needs to be addressed.

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

#272

Post by Hondor » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 5:23 AM UTC

mjevans wrote: post #241

shostack wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is also the issue of population growth rates. Future generations CANNOT keep growing like that. Be it by directed reproduction limits or global resource wars/pollution/plagues/extinction from the preceding the population will shrink.

More likely people choosing not to have kids, which is a trend appearing in rich countries. Population growth is mostly fueled by poor people.

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

#273

Post by toomuchtodo » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 5:27 AM UTC

BuckRogers wrote: post #271

travi5 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The disability program is hurting society. You can get disability for having autism. Once they are on it, they have incentives to stay on it forever. If they make even one dollar working they lose it all, so they make extra cash under the table through committing fraud, selling drugs, etc. No one can sue them and take it away, so they do things like go without insurance, buy things on credit with no intent to pay, ti…

Seconded. That stood out to me too in his post. Disability seems to be widely abused in the western world. I'm for social welfare, but I'm not for mismanagement and abuse. Disability as it exists today is a concern that needs to be addressed.

Everyone is for rugged individualism until they're incapacitated. Good luck.

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

#274

Post by Hondor » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 5:28 AM UTC

branchless wrote: post #126

nsxwolf wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of us landlords barely cover the mortgage with how much we can charge in rent. We don't simply get to increase prices and expect tenants to keep paying.

But at the end of it you get a free house for hardly any labour. Yes you have to do a bit now and again but it's hardly a full time job that your tenants have to do to cover your mortgage. I never understand why you guys are doing it if you don't gain. You are doing it because it is easy money, an easy way to extract labour. What are you expecting anyway in terms of an ongoing income stream from this endeavor? It's v…

The rewards roughly do reflect this. Ordinary investing isn't clearly better or worse than investing in property. The problem is that ordinary investing requires many years of self discipline while paying a mortgage has the bank holding a stick over you to keep you from wasting your income on lattes and holidays.

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

#275

Post by toomuchtodo » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 5:28 AM UTC

ryhamz wrote: post #261

toomuchtodo wrote: post #162

Earlier 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…

Medicare is fine, some social security facets are fine, such as disability. Social security as a general retirement plan? Shitty program. What it should be AT MOST: mandated investment in a retirement account that you can't touch. Although I would prefer to not even have policy here at all. This is only necessary because people are by and large shit with money and will not save without being forced to. What is is: ta…

> What is is: take money from workers and transfer it directly. It's not even invested to generate additional wealth.

Its invested, by law, in the safest asset known to man: Special issue US treasuries that can always be redeemed at face value (principal + interest), which come ahead of general issue treasuries.

"By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.

In the past, the trust funds have held marketable Treasury securities, which are available to the general public. Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash."

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

Why not invest in bonds or stocks? The amount the US government would need to invest would disproportionally move markets, but most importantly, the losses (when they occur) would be backstopped by the US taxpayer. There is no reason to needlessly invest the Social Security trust fund in equities when its most important asset is the ongoing ability to collect taxes (equities can go to zero; the ability to tax isn't going away under almost any circumstance, barring a complete collapse of the US government).

EDIT:

> The treasuries are just an IOU in legal form.

All debts are IOUs in legal form. The reason the US government gets such low rates is because the market believes they're more likely to pay the debt back then Joe Schmoe. And the market would be right, which is why capital scrambles into treasuries at the first sign of global financial trouble.

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

#276

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 5:33 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #263

toomuchtodo wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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…

Money has to be lent to be saved, of course. If the money is not invested in the provider or public sector, then the wealth won't exist later to meet the deferred needs.

[deleted]

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

#277

Post by MR4D » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 5:37 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #275

ryhamz wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medicare is fine, some social security facets are fine, such as disability. Social security as a general retirement plan? Shitty program. What it should be AT MOST: mandated investment in a retirement account that you can't touch. Although I would prefer to not even have policy here at all. This is only necessary because people are by and large shit with money and will not save without being forced to. What is is: ta…

> What is is: take money from workers and transfer it directly. It's not even invested to generate additional wealth. Its invested, by law, in the safest asset known to man: Special issue US treasuries that can always be redeemed at face value (principal + interest), which come ahead of general issue treasuries. "By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both…

"Invested". Only the US govt can use that term and mean "borrow" instead. The treasuries are just an IOU in legal form. Given the high debt level in the US, I wouldn't think of the literal term "invested."

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

#278

Post by maxxxxx » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 5:37 AM UTC

outericky wrote: post #270

djb_hackernews wrote: post #10

Compound 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.

The sense of entitlement is a lot higher these days. I grew up in a 900 sqft house with 1 bathroom. Yet all my peers (myself included) seek out homes 2x, 3x or bigger. Same with cars.... my parents bought used, reliable cars. Today we want fancy things. Growing up we had cable tv and a phone line. Probably spent $50/month total. The family cellphone bill, home broadband, various tv services easily top out over $300/m…

Good luck finding a 900 sqft house now.

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

#279

Post by randomdata » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 5:40 AM UTC

D_Alex wrote: post #265

djb_hackernews wrote: post #10

Compound 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.

Housing: Today's 30yo live in nicer houses, that are on the whole located in nicer places. Eg. in cities that have less pollution and more facilities than they had before. Education: Okay, that kind of sucks. But in here Australia, as an example, costs of repayments for the education are way less than the reductions in tax rates over the last 30 years. We had a 60% marginal tax rate when I started work... Health care…

> Education: Okay, that kind of sucks.

I'd argue that education has never been cheaper. Schooling is where the costs have often grown dramatically.

And as far as schooling goes, the interesting thing here is that while the degree attainment rate (in the US, Canada, and I expect even Australia) has effectively doubled since 1980, the supposed benefits, such as a higher income, that prompted more people to attend an institute of higher learning have not been realized. The youth, post-secondary schooled at a much higher rate than previous generations, are not making more money or better off as this article and many other sources of data point out.

With those promises not fulfilled, I am left wondering why the cost of schooling is even found among the likes of housing and health care? It's an enjoyable pastime, for sure, but not something essential to support (a long) life like the others.

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

#280

Post by noobermin » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 5:42 AM UTC

outericky wrote: post #270

djb_hackernews wrote: post #10

Compound 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.

The sense of entitlement is a lot higher these days. I grew up in a 900 sqft house with 1 bathroom. Yet all my peers (myself included) seek out homes 2x, 3x or bigger. Same with cars.... my parents bought used, reliable cars. Today we want fancy things. Growing up we had cable tv and a phone line. Probably spent $50/month total. The family cellphone bill, home broadband, various tv services easily top out over $300/m…

I don't mean to sound like just being contrary to you, but your anecdote doesn't square with the article. If half earn less than you did then that would mean they wouldn't afford what they want according to you and want you wanted at your age, so either way, they're hosed.