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

51–60 of 75 posts

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

#51

Post by golergka »

qntty wrote: post #39
golergka wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> In nature, a person cannot have infinite wealth.

In nature, most of children die in infancy, might makes right, murder rates are sky-high and starvation is a constant threat.

So, if anything, using "in nature" is working against your case, not for it.

> The idea that someone can have as much wealth as they want

Nobody can have as much as they "want" - but everybody should be able as much wealth as they have acquired through any kind of lawful exchange.

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

#52

Post by golergka »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #36
golergka wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> not whether or not it exists

It seems that you're trying to frame my argument as if I wanted to abolish the state completely, but I have said nothing of the sort. Just as you're saying, the question is, in what form should the sate exist. And my answer is, in the most minimal form required to uphold the things that no other institution can.

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

#53

Post by qntty »

golergka wrote: post #51
qntty wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> In nature, a person cannot have infinite wealth. In nature, most of children die in infancy, might makes right, murder rates are sky-high and starvation is a constant threat. So, if anything, using "in nature" is working against your case, not for it. > The idea that someone can have as much wealth as they want Nobody can have as much as they "want" - but everybody should be able as much wealth as they have acquire…

> In nature, most of children die in infancy, might makes right, murder rates are sky-high and starvation is a constant threat.

> So, if anything, using "in nature" is working against your case, not for it.

Total non-sequitur. The point is that the idea of unlimited wealth is an artificial construction.

> everybody should be able as much wealth as they have acquired through any kind of lawful exchange.

Any state that protects the property of wealthy people through violence can surely also put obligations on those people. In exchange for the state's violence, they must support a social safety net which gives the people who wealthy people are being protected from basic human necessities and dignity.

The state who gives an artificially constructed right to wealthy people (the institution of private property) can also give an artificially constructed right to poor people (basic needs and dignity).

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

#54

Post by ptah »

hrktb wrote: post #48
ptah wrote: post #41

older generation is not wise at all. they should be saving for when the current pension and old age benefit system collapses. i guess they are the same people that gave us climate change so i am not surprised at their shortsightedness

A sizeable portion of the older generation having fun right now also owns property, and will massively oppose any political move that could depreciate their property values. Sadly I don't think they are out of their mind spending so much, a lot of them have passed the FU point (enough assets to live decently whatever time is left for them)

the point is that it won't be a voluntary thing like a political move that will wipe them out economically

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

#55

Post by barry0079 »

xcklo wrote: post #50
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've increased your earnings, but if you run the numbers it's very unlikely you're actually better off unless you have a property appreciating at London speed. Over my career (I did contract in London around y2k) I have more in my pocket each month - after expenses - by staying outside the SE. Rent or mortgage, commuting costs, the price of everything else - food, beer, tickets. Sure, I could earn £x extra and have…

Not sure I really follow the "cost of beer" thing. One of the merits of high income high expenses is that "luxury" spending is relatively affordable in the long run, because your discretionary income is a larger absolute number. On the other hand your time becomes more expensive. But since most medium income medium expenses locations means less opportunities to do other things with other people that isn't always a go…

As an anecdotal example the cost of a pint of beer in London can be 3 to 4 times as expensive as what I'm used to in the South West. For other basic necessities I agree with you however.

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

#56

Post by SantalBlush »

golergka wrote: post #52
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> not whether or not it exists It seems that you're trying to frame my argument as if I wanted to abolish the state completely, but I have said nothing of the sort. Just as you're saying, the question is, in what form should the sate exist. And my answer is, in the most minimal form required to uphold the things that no other institution can.

The state corrects for market failures, which no other institution can. It can also pool risk much more efficiently than a corporation can.

I'd say the current state (US or UK) isn't far off from what you describe.

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

#57

Post by danaris »

golergka wrote: post #49
danaris wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charity has been proven, time and again, to be completely inadequate to the task of providing for the poor and needy. We live in a society. The rich benefit hugely from that society. It is their duty and responsibility to give back enough to help maintain and improve that society. To say otherwise is, effectively, to say that it's OK to want everyone beyond the walls of your castle to starve.

> It is their duty and responsibility to give back You cannot decide what other people's legal duty or responsibility is if they hadn't entered a voluntarily agreement with you. And moral duty should never be imposed by violence - it's always up to individual moral choice. > To say otherwise is, effectively, to say that it's OK to want everyone beyond the walls of your castle to starve. No. To say otherwise is to val…

> You cannot decide what other people's legal duty or responsibility is if they hadn't entered a voluntarily agreement with you.

You appear to be one of those who worship at the altar of inviolable individual self-determination.

That concept is antithetical to a functioning society.

I understand its allure—it seems to be a logical and empowering thing. But it's fatally flawed, because humans are not individual creatures, evolved to live out solitary lives creating our own path. We are social creatures. Thus, any philosophy that puts the will of the individual above all else will inevitably fail.

In my experience in practice, people espousing such a philosophy generally either are or believe they will be in a position to impose their will on others, and want a philosophical basis for claiming that as moral and just.

Note, please, that I'm not saying that individual self-determination must always bow to the will of the majority. That's also deeply problematic. Instead, I'm saying that no absolutist philosophy will provide you with the tools you need to create a world that's worth living in for everyone.

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

#58

Post by ThrustVectoring »

ptah wrote: post #41

older generation is not wise at all. they should be saving for when the current pension and old age benefit system collapses. i guess they are the same people that gave us climate change so i am not surprised at their shortsightedness

What you're saying makes sense for individuals, but not the generation as a whole. Total retiree spending is entirely financed by a combination of current tax receipts and selling assets. Pay-as-you-go and financially funded schemes are substantially equivalent here - current retiree consumption is 100% funded by current workers, the only difference being whether it's called something like "Social Security taxes" or "student loan payments".

What additional saving does is improve the standard of living of current retirees, through increasing asset prices. What old people need is to invest in the productivity of current and future generations, so that society is rich enough to support them how they'd like without squeezing the life out of current workers.

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

#59

Post by vallode »

dev_north_east wrote: post #35
vallode wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah my bad, somehow I omitted the fact they said London is the only city! Yeah that is a little weird, plenty more to the UK than just London :)

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

#60

Post by tonyedgecombe »

barry0079 wrote: post #55
xcklo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I really follow the "cost of beer" thing. One of the merits of high income high expenses is that "luxury" spending is relatively affordable in the long run, because your discretionary income is a larger absolute number. On the other hand your time becomes more expensive. But since most medium income medium expenses locations means less opportunities to do other things with other people that isn't always a go…

As an anecdotal example the cost of a pint of beer in London can be 3 to 4 times as expensive as what I'm used to in the South West. For other basic necessities I agree with you however.

The South West feels so old now. We were in Dorset a couple of weeks ago and I'm convinced I didn't see anybody younger than myself and I'm 55.
Post reply on HN