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

The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 974 posts

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#261

Post by computerphage »

dcolkitt wrote: post #246

> Housing is more expensive for them than prior generations I harp on this constantly. But housing is not more expensive in the majority of American metros. Adjusted for inflation the median cost per square foot of new housing is almost exactly the same as it was in 1990. (This doesn't even take into account that mortgage rates are drastically lower since then.) We get skewed on this for two reasons. One is because h…

What about other years? 1980? 1970? I would love to see this data over time.

> homes today are substantially larger

Is there any availability of smaller homes in actual markets? If I'm a buyer in the market do I even have the option to buy a cheap smaller home?

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#262

Post by computerphage »

war1025 wrote: post #257
elektor wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a valid point but millions of people live and work in SF, NY, LA, and DC. Their needs for housing should be acknowledged as well.

The point is that it's a regional, not generational, problem.

It's not just a regional problem if it's happening in every region.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#263

Post by zpeti »

zpeti wrote: post #191
messe wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is blatantly false. Income tax on higher earners in the UK has decreased since the 1970s/1980s when IIRC the highest tax bands were over 70%, if not higher.

Yet in the UK the amount of tax paid by the 1% is the highest ever (34%), 42% of adults pay NO income tax. And the tax take as a proportion of GDP is 34.4%, the highest EVER. We are living in the most taxed time in history with the rich contributing the most ever. Not the impression you get from people complaining about it. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/13/richest-bri...

4 downvotes so far after quoting uncomfortable truths from the guardian. Thanks HN.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#264

Post by pb7 »

saagarjha wrote: post #225
analog31 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting. In the US, it's called a "pre-payment penalty," where you have to pay a fee if you want to pay off a loan early. It's not imposed by regulation, but is up to each lender, so you can choose a loan that does not have such a penalty. Often consumers with weak credit or low incomes end up with loans that have worse terms, such as these penalties. My family refinanced our home loan, and it was just a m…

Perhaps I don’t understand why there should be a penalty to pay off a loan too early? I’ve given the bank back their money; isn’t that exactly why I was paying interest in the first place?

They write the terms to benefit themselves; in this case, to guarantee a minimum payout from the effort/risk. Not justifying it but a bank does as a bank does.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#265

Post by jbay808 »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #113
Philip-J-Fry wrote: post #94

I'm my early 20s and in the UK. I earn more than my Dad who is in his 50s. He managed to get a house, have money left over for an expensive hobby, decent car, the odd holiday etc. I'm a 90th percentile earner. Will 95+ percentile earner in a few years time. Yet it feels like I am not as well off as I should be. I don't live in an expensive area either. Yet I need to save so much money to even have the opportunity to…

I’m in my mid fifties and I have never had a company pension, defined benefit or contribution. I saw my first house decline in value by 25%. We had interest rates peaking at 15%. I didn’t have student loans but only because I didn’t go to university, just like 90% of my peer group. Unemployment was much higher than it is now and schools were teaching subjects for obsolete careers. It wasn’t as rosey as it is often po…

How old were you when you bought that first house?

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#266

Post by LoSboccacc »

bleppoblepis wrote: post #179
qwerty1234599 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking about Europe here

What makes Europe unique such that the proposition that lowered taxes would lead to greater Millenial success holds true, when the same low-tax policies applied in America seem to have yielded similar results to the European approach? If this seems like a leading question, it's not intended to be--I'm American and curious about the potential variables at play here that I'm not aware of.

the European market is a disaster for investment and entrepreneurship, that's what's holding millennial back. your average SMB reach is often regional, and the bureaucracy structure makes almost impossible for garage operations not only to go above national, but to even exist.

like in sports, the size of the talent pool matters, and with an unbearable cost for entry entrepreneurship almost s losing proposition unless if under the heels of some financing partner whims, as it's the only realistic option to sustain the bottom line costs from handling vatmoss, letters of taxations and the other billion historical bureaucratic commitments

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#267

Post by alchemism »

computerphage wrote: post #261
dcolkitt wrote: post #246

> Housing is more expensive for them than prior generations I harp on this constantly. But housing is not more expensive in the majority of American metros. Adjusted for inflation the median cost per square foot of new housing is almost exactly the same as it was in 1990. (This doesn't even take into account that mortgage rates are drastically lower since then.) We get skewed on this for two reasons. One is because h…

What about other years? 1980? 1970? I would love to see this data over time. > homes today are substantially larger Is there any availability of smaller homes in actual markets? If I'm a buyer in the market do I even have the option to buy a cheap smaller home?

No, you have the option of buying a condominium apartment in most cases.

Here in the Philadelphia urban real estate market —- which has no shortage of reclaimable housing —- the break-even point for builders is about triple the value of the existing homes. No current resident can afford to buy one, so single family homes get converted into tiny “luxury” condos.

[Edit: there are city subsidized ‘tiny-housing’ developments but these are more for welfare recipients than regular buyers.]

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#268

Post by Gunax »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #113
Philip-J-Fry wrote: post #94

I'm my early 20s and in the UK. I earn more than my Dad who is in his 50s. He managed to get a house, have money left over for an expensive hobby, decent car, the odd holiday etc. I'm a 90th percentile earner. Will 95+ percentile earner in a few years time. Yet it feels like I am not as well off as I should be. I don't live in an expensive area either. Yet I need to save so much money to even have the opportunity to…

I’m in my mid fifties and I have never had a company pension, defined benefit or contribution. I saw my first house decline in value by 25%. We had interest rates peaking at 15%. I didn’t have student loans but only because I didn’t go to university, just like 90% of my peer group. Unemployment was much higher than it is now and schools were teaching subjects for obsolete careers. It wasn’t as rosey as it is often po…

Everyone will argue with their own statistics, but I think your general sentiment is correct.

Everyone seems to think the oldies had it easy in the good ol' days and the youngens are a bunch of lazy good-for-nothins.

There are probably certain a ways it has gotten easier and others in which it is worse... But I think this is more about generational sentiment than actual facts.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#269

Post by LoSboccacc »

wonderwonder wrote: post #88
zpeti wrote: post #37

I think people need to start realising just how incredibly much the government is now stepping in at each of these crises to make them as smooth as possible. But there is a downside to this. You are not allowing the normal economic effects to happen because you are wanting to keep everything as it is, but then guess what, the status quo stays, and anyone joining the ladder is finding it increasingly difficult. What's…

"millennials shouldn't be arguing for more government intervention, but less" Your argument that government intervention is bad for millennials is flawed. Without government intervention such as eviction moratoriums, unemployment benefits and federal government stimulus checks there would have been massive homelessness. Prior to the pandemic 40% of americans could not cover a $400 emergency, all of these people would…

massive rent price decrease, you mean.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#270

Post by techsupporter »

bradlys wrote: post #241
milkytron wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they all working remotely, and did they have permission to? I'm curious why there would be arguments over this, why would higher ups want people to stay put when the work is remote anyway?

Time zone differences. Remote people are less likely to want to come back to the office after or might be slow to do such (“cant yet. Have to find a place to live. Will take months.”) Taxation purposes. Plenty of reasons afaict.

> Remote people are less likely to want to come back to the office after or might be slow to do such

I'm in the same area code as my employer and I am far less likely to want to come back to the office after. My "office" is a 15-person open space pod with no barriers, no door, and a handful of breakout rooms per floor for one-on-one meetings that are always occupied by someone camped out in there for the entire day (the lunch wrappers and multiple soda cans are a dead giveaway).

Meanwhile, at home, my family might be in a smallish apartment but I have a bedroom I can use as a home office, my own food with all of the zero-sugar soda I can buy, a restroom where no one is ever sitting in a stall gabbing away on the phone, and I'm not sitting four feet from my boss' shoulder while we're both doing technical calls.

I never want to go back, and I loved my commute.

Post reply on HN