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

61–70 of 97 posts

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

#61

Post by maxxxxx »

lotharbot wrote: post #59
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…

"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 amen…

If only we could buy 1000 square foot houses in expensive areas. They don't get built anymore.

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

#62

Post by chillwaves »

0xbear wrote: post #41
HarryHirsch wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the people on the wrong side of 40.

I’m older than that myself. Doing pretty good.

If you are 40 and just getting started, how does that feel?

Do you have any capacity for empathy or understanding a life situation that is not your own?

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

#63

Post by virmundi »

empath75 wrote: post #46
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.

Unless you’re retiring in the next five years or something like that.

Do you think market will return to this level with your current basket of equities? There is an argument that the market has too much liquidity due to QE and low rates within the fractional reserve system. If the market crashes, will the monetary policy be there to get the market to these highs within 5-10 years?

Also, if you think the market is going down, one doesn’t need perfect timing. You can get out and have cash on hand to buy later. If everything goes down 25% and you sold out 5% below the max value, you now have more money than your peers, which started in the market, to get gains in the future.

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

#64

Post by vacri »

rdtsc wrote: post #50
vacri wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first year of someone's term is very rarely affected by their policies. My particular pet hate is when politicians start bragging about how their policies are responsible for good economic news when they're still in the first three months. Truth is that economies change slowly, and politicians have much less control over it than we all like to believe.

I think in general you're right, but with a some exceptions. Like say it depends on what part of economy we are talking about. If inflation, GDP numbers and so on, then those move slower. But stock market can react pretty quickly it seems. For example it can react to getting a hint of a possibly changing regulatory environments. A crashing or rapidly rising stock market will affect the economy quite a bit, especially…

Well, disasters and foreign economic threats aren't due to a politician's policy, and the regulatory environment usually doesn't change straight away (that requires legislation, not just a policy manifesto). War is a rare event as well, and it doesn't necessarily affect the wider economy - the war in Iraq and Afghanistan hasn't affected the US economy much, which quite happily went through a boom time in the early years of the war, then crashed for reasons unrelated to the war. Of course, the economy of Iraq got soundly fucked by war, but that wasn't due to the economic policies of the politician in charge.

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

#65

Post by taysic »

lotharbot wrote: post #59
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…

"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 amen…

Lol the house you described would go over a million in the Bay Area and it was built before the 70s too. No heating or ac gets installed too. So I wonder how that gets accounted for in inflation?

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

#66

Post by 0xbear »

chillwaves wrote: post #62
0xbear wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m older than that myself. Doing pretty good.

If you are 40 and just getting started, how does that feel? Do you have any capacity for empathy or understanding a life situation that is not your own?

No. If you can’t find a job as an engineer in this white hot market, it’s time to think of a career change. That’s the cold, hard truth. Things are crazier than I’ve seen them in 20 years. Empathy does not motivate. Get off your ass and strike this iron while it’s hot.

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

#67

Post by jdavis703 »

taysic wrote: post #65
lotharbot wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 amen…

Lol the house you described would go over a million in the Bay Area and it was built before the 70s too. No heating or ac gets installed too. So I wonder how that gets accounted for in inflation?

Most houses don't have dishwashers, washing machines or clothes dryers as far as I can tell either.

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

#68

Post by Consultant32452 »

nostrademons wrote: post #55
yorwba wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

I think you have a very privileged view of what work is like. Most people will not have a career, they'll have a series of jobs. Most people do not have a broad range of opportunities to choose from which will offer them economic security. Enjoyment of the work is a factor, but it's so far behind economic security that I'm not sure it should be mentioned in conversations with young people when giving them advice about their economic future. Doing so tends to lead to a false equivalence. Economic stability is first and foremost.

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

#69

Post by taysic »

zappo2938 wrote: post #2

What happens when the US needs to start paying off the trillions in debt? I remember the last time things were good. It stopped being good quite rapidly. I don't know much about monetary and economic policy but I'm optimistically cautious. I can't imagine the US borrowing several trillion dollars to keep credit from freezing again.

I don’t see why you’re getting downvoted. This is a good question I don’t know the answer to. Id also like to know what the consequences are of the gov buying back bonds with quantitative easing... which at the very least to me seems to pump value into these bonds that aren’t a really there - esp if the buyback is because the government is not equipped to pay them back.

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

#70

Post by guest »

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.

I'm not a layperson but neither am I working in the field. You should always differentiate between a national economist (Keynes - spend when you are in recession, stockpile in progression - gives a stable rise) and the corporate stooges (Friedman et al - always spend forever in debt - gives erradic ups and down which enables aristocracy to contain power by having better access to information).
Post reply on HN