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

Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says

#31

Post by ck425 »

foldr wrote: post #13
dev_north_east wrote: post #5

My advice to "millenials" (well I think technically I'm one, so let's say younger ones) is to stay the hell away from London. I read these articles on the housing crisis and staggering rent amounts and wonder am I even living in the same country as these people.

This basically amounts to advising them not to live in a city (which is fine). But some people do like living in cities, and London is really the only option in the UK if you want to do that. No other city in the UK is anywhere close to London in terms of culture and economic opportunity. Yes, rents in Manchester and Birmingham are lower. But you're going to get paid less, you have to live in a second tier city, and…

You can get a far better quality of life in most other cities on the standard developer salary than you can in London. I know multiple colleagues who have moved out of London, taken a large salary cut but ended up with a far higher quality of life and more disposable income despite it.

Also the idea that other cities are second-tier is incredibly biased. Sure London has some things that the RUK doesn't but there are also plenty of things you can't get in London (fresh air for one). It's a different lifestyle, not a 'second tier' lifestyle. Also other cities are cities, they might not be mega cities but that's not the definition of the word.

Lastly the career opportunities part depends. Yes there are less opportunities but there are also far less people vying for them. Smaller pond but bigger fish. If you're a careerist looking to become the top 1%, London is probably your best bet in the UK, but it's perfectly possible to work in the top 10% outside of London.

Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says

#32

Post by ck425 »

RickJWagner wrote: post #30

Totally intuitive. Kids have always been broke. It's a trope seen in movies and tv shows that go back several decades, because it mirrors real life. In the early working years, people have never had much money. (Fortunately, this later corrects.)

The article was comparing the same age ranges through time though. Young people are less well off compared to previous young people and old folk are more well off compared to previous old folk.

Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says

#33

Post by golergka »

nosianu wrote: post #17
golergka wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that tweet is nothing of the sort. Food is not a luxury, but you can never have a right for someone else's labour.

> you can never have a right for someone else's labour. The reason a human's productivity is orders of magnitude higher than that of a stone age person is the work of uncountable legions of dead people. Almost everything we have and know is due to network effects of humans working together in time and space. The current generation's productivity is almost all due to inherited tools and knowledge. You do live off of "…

This is true, and that's why you should advocate for charity - which is based on free will decision on controlling your own property and resources, just as all the interactions that make up modern world that you so thoroughly describe.

The "human right" concept, however, is entirely different: it is referring to use of the mechanism that has monopoly on violence, the state, to redistribute these resources, by the use of or threat of use of said violence, without any free will involved. This mechanism completely removes individual capability of making a moral decision, and uses morality as a pretext to obtain monopolistic, bureaucratic power.

In my view, this monstrous mechanism, which is capable of despotism thousands as bad as any other, should be only used for things that cannot be achieved without it, such as rule of law. Charity and helping others is a noble thing, but since it can be achieved without it, just through free individuals decisions, it should.

Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says

#34

Post by humanrebar »

xcklo wrote: post #12
dev_north_east wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if people would actually would start moving somewhere else instead the same things would happens there. Not really. Unless everyone moves to the same place. We need to diversify from London. Having everything centred there is madness.

It would probably in many places though. The reason cities like London are more "successful" these days despite being completely unsuitable for modern industries at face value is because they can handle the growth. Adding a couple a thousand people is a rounding error in big cities, but would be the entire liquid housing market in smaller ones. Maybe you are right, maybe people just aren't aware. But it doesn't seem…

> ...because they can handle the growth.

Except for the lack of affordable housing?

Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says

#35

Post by dev_north_east »

vallode wrote: post #22
dev_north_east wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This basically amounts to advising them not to live in a city (which is fine). But some people do like living in cities, and London is really the only option in the UK if you want to do that. I'm gonna call bollocks on that :) I agree with the rest to an extent. You're going to be paid higher (well not everybody, but most HN readers would be) and have all the other advantages of London. Fine. But you need to take t…

Not sure I understand... you're gonna call bollocks on the idea that someone can have different likes and dislikes from you?

London is not the only city in the UK. That's what I'm calling bollocks on.

Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says

#36

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

golergka wrote: post #33
nosianu wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can never have a right for someone else's labour. The reason a human's productivity is orders of magnitude higher than that of a stone age person is the work of uncountable legions of dead people. Almost everything we have and know is due to network effects of humans working together in time and space. The current generation's productivity is almost all due to inherited tools and knowledge. You do live off of "…

This is true, and that's why you should advocate for charity - which is based on free will decision on controlling your own property and resources, just as all the interactions that make up modern world that you so thoroughly describe. The "human right" concept, however, is entirely different: it is referring to use of the mechanism that has monopoly on violence, the state, to redistribute these resources, by the use…

There's always a state in one form or another. Always.

The question is who controls it and who benefits from it, not whether or not it exists.

Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says

#37

Post by davman »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #9
ck425 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are still a lot of places in the UK outside of London that have plenty of jobs and are far more affordable.

I live in Nottingham. There are tonnes of tech jobs here in the Midlands, and housing is quite affordable.

And yet the tech scene in Leicester is awful in comparison :(

Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says

#38

Post by foldr »

ck425 wrote: post #31
foldr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This basically amounts to advising them not to live in a city (which is fine). But some people do like living in cities, and London is really the only option in the UK if you want to do that. No other city in the UK is anywhere close to London in terms of culture and economic opportunity. Yes, rents in Manchester and Birmingham are lower. But you're going to get paid less, you have to live in a second tier city, and…

You can get a far better quality of life in most other cities on the standard developer salary than you can in London. I know multiple colleagues who have moved out of London, taken a large salary cut but ended up with a far higher quality of life and more disposable income despite it. Also the idea that other cities are second-tier is incredibly biased. Sure London has some things that the RUK doesn't but there are…

Talking about quality of life is usually a coded way of talking about not really living in a city. Yes, London is relatively noisy, dirty, cramped, etc. The only way you can get less of that in the UK is to also have less of the benefits of living in a city. I mean, there's no other city in the UK that even has a proper public transit system. Not liking cities is, as I said, a personal preference, and perfectly fine.

Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says

#39

Post by qntty »

golergka wrote: post #33
nosianu wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can never have a right for someone else's labour. The reason a human's productivity is orders of magnitude higher than that of a stone age person is the work of uncountable legions of dead people. Almost everything we have and know is due to network effects of humans working together in time and space. The current generation's productivity is almost all due to inherited tools and knowledge. You do live off of "…

This is true, and that's why you should advocate for charity - which is based on free will decision on controlling your own property and resources, just as all the interactions that make up modern world that you so thoroughly describe. The "human right" concept, however, is entirely different: it is referring to use of the mechanism that has monopoly on violence, the state, to redistribute these resources, by the use…

Using violence to collect taxes is monstrous but using violence to protect the property of rich people is right and just? In nature, a person cannot have infinite wealth. The idea that someone can have as much wealth as they want is a creation of the state and is enforced by violence.

Re: Young adults have less to spend on non-essentials, study says

#40

Post by dev_north_east »

reallydontask wrote: post #29
dev_north_east wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tbh I think the "easiest" single thing which would improve the UK immensely would be to ditch FPTP and bring in some type of PR voting.

If we had a PR voting system and the PM resigned. What would happen? Would a general election be called? It's a bit farcical that the country will have a PM that was not the leader of the governing party at the last election. Granted with the Brexit mess they could arguably have some legitimate reasons for not calling it straight away but it seems that they've all ruled out calling it at all, AFAIK.

> If we had a PR voting system and the PM resigned. What would happen?

Ireland has a form of PR (single transferable vote), they've had plenty of instances of the Taoiseach (PM) being replaced and not going to a general election straight away.

Post reply on HN