Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
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

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 394 posts

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

#281

Post by maxxxxx »

giardini wrote: post #116
cnnsucks wrote: post #66

This is WSJ red meat political controversy stuff. The story devolves into the usual "tax the rich" and anti-welfare state debate as any other political click-bait. I thought HN wasn't doing that for a week... I actually agree with the premise and many of the conclusions, and if it popped up on Drudge or Breitbart or whatever I'd be fine with it, but why here? Why must every popular site devolve into either a virtual…

Just a note: you _have_ to "tax the rich". Nobody else has enough money to pay the bills! The question isn't whether to "tax the rich" or not - it's "How should we tax the rich" and How much should we tax the rich?" that we need to answer. Meanwhile the correct answers are: - Bring back heavy estate ("death") taxes to prevent wealth from being passed from generation to generation, - Create heavy wealth taxes so that…

I don't think you necessarily have to tax the rich. Their share of income should be reduced to the share they had maybe 40 years ago. Stronger unions would help for example. Having the owner class deciding they need more and more money can't work in the long run.

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

#282

Post by mistermann »

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…

A 900 sq ft condo let alone home will run you $750k+ lots of places.

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

#283

Post by paulddraper »

noobermin wrote: post #280
outericky wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seem to think that income always corresponds to expenses.

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

#284

Post by mistermann »

Chinjut wrote: post #253
mattlevan wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Nah, screw that. We all deserve comfortable retirements, and we should fund it as a society. Wealth inequality being what it is, yes, the wealthy can afford to chip in for the well-being of the rest of us. Or rather, we can afford to redistribute our wealth claims as a society in this way. Why not? Wealth is a logical fiction we've invented, as to who has what monetary claims we enforce, and we can bend this fiction…

> Wealth is a logical fiction we've invented, as to who has what monetary claims we enforce, and we can bend this fiction to our goals

What would the transition from our current state to one with significantly altered monetary claims look like? Would it be a voluntary transition, or a forceful one?

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

#285

Post by mistermann »

Hondor wrote: post #272
mjevans wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or, more people not being able to afford to have kids, another trend appearing in rich countries.

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

#286

Post by mistermann »

mtanski wrote: post #250
jobu wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we should hope for more declines in life-expectancy then: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-li...

A older friend of mine who structured financial products said that the worst thing we did for the healt of the Social Secuirty fund was the war on cigarettes. He said it in jest... but he wasn't wrong.

Oh, I'd love to hear more detail on this if you remember any?

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

#287

Post by dennyis »

mistermann wrote: post #282
outericky wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A 900 sq ft condo let alone home will run you $750k+ lots of places.

It's really not that many places when you take the whole US into account.

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

#288

Post by paulddraper »

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…

This.

US home ownership has gone up and down between 64% and 69% in the past 30 years, currently at the low end of that. But at the same time, the average new house went from 1,600 to 2,500 sqft.

Thirty years ago, how many people plopped down $5k for a TV? $700 for a phone? $150/month for telecom?

Life expediency has increased by 6 years from 1975 to 2010.

And to top it off, we're working less than we ever have. Average hours per year: 1,900 (1950), 1,800 (1970), 1,725 (1990), and 1,700 (2010).

Despite the "back in my day" doomsaying, on average, our quality of life has never been better.

---

My two cents why:

Cent 1: In a globally connected world, we are painfully obvious of the millions of people living more comfortably than us. When it was just Mr. Jones down the block, it didn't feel so bad.

Cent 2: Culture and priorities have changed. Rural population has been dropping for decades. People are more likely to rent a 500 sqft apartment in a large urban center than rent/buy a 900 sqft house in a town of 20k. Not a bad thing, just a different thing, and we have to take into account the whole picture.

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

#289

Post by gragas »

Retric wrote: post #259
gragas wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 grow…

If the economy was static then zero real growth is fine. However, not all costs rise 1:1 with inflation. Housing for example requires land which is zero sum so when people fall behind they really are worse of in real terms. Remember, if 1/2 your costs double then it does not matter how much the rest of your costs decrease. AKA the inverse of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

You make a good point. I agree.

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

#290

Post by mistermann »

sean_patel wrote: post #257
RandomOpinion wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-...

From the BBC article you've linked to > There are a number of reasons why health declines after retirement, said Dave, but, mental and social stimulation are a large factor. For many people, work is where they are the most social and do the most physical activity. When that core social network is removed, health declines. Specifically, this. > For many people, work is where they are the most social and do the most ph…

They're needed by their job, and their friends, society. For a lot of people, when they retire, they don't really have anyone to talk to anymore. Maybe they don't have many personal friends. Maybe they don't have a strong marriage, or their spouse passed, or they never married. Maybe their children have moved away, and are so busy with their exciting lives, it seems they never have time for anything more than the obligatory weekly skype session.

This can make your health decline.

Post reply on HN