Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

census.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#51

Post by yorwba »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #45
SapphireSun wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about all the people that have no interest or ability to code? What happens when everyone does code? Wages collapse.

The idea that you should have an interest in what you do for money is a new one and I think fairly unhealthy. It's part of the reason why we have so many young people with degrees in underwater basketweaving who can't find work in their majors. We're in the midst of an insane sociological revolution regarding "ability." 100 years ago it didn't matter if you had a 140 IQ because you were just out plowing the field the…

I think the unhealthy idea is that you should work in a field that you have no interest in, just because it pays more than underwater basketweaving, even if that'd still be enough to make a living and you'd enjoy it much more.

After a certain fairly low threshold, having more money doesn't automatically make you more happy (i.e. you're already fed and clothed and have a place to sleep). Once you have crossed that threshold, you'll have to weigh work satisfaction against pay, and it may turn out in favor of the low-paying job you enjoy more.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#52

Post by grzm »

stevenmays wrote: post #49

I wonder why the title of this post got changed from "US Median Household Income +3.2% to All-Time High..."

The title was changed to the actual title of the document. HN discourages editorializing titles.

> "…please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#53

Post by pdog »

McBlorker wrote: post #4

I'm curious: is anyone at a point where they're pulling out of equities at all? I feel like things are getting a bit too good to be true in the markets. The Shiller P/E ratio is at a 2nd-time high - the only other higher time being the dot-com boom and bust: multpl.com/shiller-pe/

If you follow a simple rebalancing strategy, you'll automatically sell stocks when they are more expensive and buy them when they are cheaper.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#54

Post by mcguire »

jdavis703 wrote: post #29
electrograv wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the explanation! For a layperson like myself in this field, this was not immediately obvious from the qualifier "real".

I'm also a layperson, so if a real economist posts something contradictory you'll probably want to listen to them. Of course economists are always contradicting each other so YMMV.

Note: "real" in this comment does not refer to a post-inflation correction economist.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#55

Post by nostrademons »

yorwba wrote: post #51
Consultant32452 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that you should have an interest in what you do for money is a new one and I think fairly unhealthy. It's part of the reason why we have so many young people with degrees in underwater basketweaving who can't find work in their majors. We're in the midst of an insane sociological revolution regarding "ability." 100 years ago it didn't matter if you had a 140 IQ because you were just out plowing the field the…

I think the unhealthy idea is that you should work in a field that you have no interest in, just because it pays more than underwater basketweaving, even if that'd still be enough to make a living and you'd enjoy it much more. After a certain fairly low threshold, having more money doesn't automatically make you more happy (i.e. you're already fed and clothed and have a place to sleep). Once you have crossed that thr…

There's a false dichotomy between you and the grandparent post. Most people have multiple fields they could potentially be interested in, with a wide range of incomes. And conversely, there are multiple fields that generate high incomes, with a wide range of appeal to you.

In my view, you should take income as a signal, one piece of information. It's the market telling you which fields are valued by others and yet have too few practitioners. It's not the only signal - you should also listen to your feelings about whether you enjoy the work, whether you feel like you're growing, whether you can live in a geographic location you like, whether you can work hours that suit you, whether the results of your work accord with your values, and so on. But you make tradeoffs between these factors: you don't get to have everything. If you decide to follow your passion with a non-lucrative field, that's fine, but realize that the consequence of your decision is that you will make less than someone whose work is valued more highly by the market. And it's up to you to decide whether the things you could buy with that money are worth more than the experience of doing the job.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#56

Post by stevenmays »

pdog wrote: post #53
McBlorker wrote: post #4

I'm curious: is anyone at a point where they're pulling out of equities at all? I feel like things are getting a bit too good to be true in the markets. The Shiller P/E ratio is at a 2nd-time high - the only other higher time being the dot-com boom and bust: multpl.com/shiller-pe/

If you follow a simple rebalancing strategy, you'll automatically sell stocks when they are more expensive and buy them when they are cheaper.

This. I rebalance my portfolio to hold the "correct for me" allocation.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#57

Post by mcguire »

dragonwriter wrote: post #43
alexasmyths wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" which means things like CPI are taken in to account." Yes - but we should all be weary of this. CPI is measured in funky ways, and it's tough one. Problems with measures: + Both housing and Oil prices are usually left out of the numbers they use (included in others). There are reasons for doing this, but it's bazonkers crazy to think of 'consumer prices' as not including their #1 item (housing) and a huge variable…

> Yes - but we should all be weary of this. From context, I suspect, though I'm not certain, that you mean “wary” (cautious), not “weary” (tired).

Possibly both.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#58

Post by mcguire »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #7
McBlorker wrote: post #4

I'm curious: is anyone at a point where they're pulling out of equities at all? I feel like things are getting a bit too good to be true in the markets. The Shiller P/E ratio is at a 2nd-time high - the only other higher time being the dot-com boom and bust: multpl.com/shiller-pe/

Why would you. Everyone is so in the money already, who cares if you get a 10% down day when you're up 100% yoy? Put another way, everyone is playing with the houses money so why not risk it?

Alright. It's past my bedtime. I'm folding. Anyone want to buy my shares? :-)

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#59

Post by lotharbot »

alexasmyths wrote: post #35
jdavis703 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The increase is measured in "real terms" which means things like CPI are taken in to account. Further this number does decrease, for example during the last recession, so household median income is not directly correlated with inflation -- especially in this era of low inflation (compared to the mid-to-late 20th century inflation) that we've been in for a while.

" which means things like CPI are taken in to account." Yes - but we should all be weary of this. CPI is measured in funky ways, and it's tough one. Problems with measures: + Both housing and Oil prices are usually left out of the numbers they use (included in others). There are reasons for doing this, but it's bazonkers crazy to think of 'consumer prices' as not including their #1 item (housing) and a huge variable…

"core" CPI includes housing.

This is funky for another reason: people don't live in similar housing to what people lived in in the past. If you look at census data (American Housing Survey) from 40-50 years ago, you find the average American home was under 1500 square feet, 2-3 bedrooms, 1-2 bathrooms, no AC, no laundry machines, and so on. In fact, the average American home in the 1970s was smaller and had less amenities than the average current American home for people below the poverty line.

Any measure that just looks at the change in housing costs and doesn't adjust for the benefits of on-average larger homes with more amenities will end up overestimating that piece of monetary inflation (accidentally counting lifestyle inflation.) As you say, it's really hard to measure the "real value increase of a product", and that makes a lot of inflation measures... sketchy.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#60

Post by lotharbot »

rmrm wrote: post #36
baron816 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to time the market is a well known suboptimal strategy. Just leave your money and try not to worry about it.

My issue with this line of thought, is that while completely true, it also doesn't mean a whole lot. It is completely dependent on it being the US stock market. And during a period for that stock market that had a number of incredibly important items go it's way. Its not backfitting because it happened, but we only find it meaningful because we happened to have been here during it. For any number of reasons, includin…

> "It is completely dependent on it being the US stock market."

Not really. It's only dependent on stock prices inherently reflecting all of the information buyers and sellers have about their expectations, including expected risk and reward. Trying to "time" the market basically means trying to find a signal other buyers and sellers haven't figured out, or at least not enough of them to cause prices to shift accordingly.

Which isn't to say it's impossible. You can be among the first to notice something is awry. It just probably won't be "the P/E is off"; lots of people look at that. It'll be something like in the last housing bubble -- "huh, I noticed housing prices are way out of reach for median income earners, so I looked into loan practices, and apparently risky loans are being repackaged and sold off in a way that masks the risk" and then watching things like loan default rates like a hawk, and then selling as soon as loan defaults started affecting the market.

Post reply on HN