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

Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#181

Post by vmception »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #7

I see this on the fringes of those within my circle of friends. I know one man in this age cohort who doesn't seem to have a job, just plays video games all the time, and I don't get it. But one thing I think about is what he has been exposed to: this is what he knows. I don't think this individual I'm speaking of was raised with anything differently. In this same light, as I believe the two concepts are directly rel…

> know one man in this age cohort who doesn't seem to have a job, just plays video games all the time, and I don't get it.

this provides some context for why some women immediately balk when they see my playstation controller and vr headset on the west elm media cabinet

"[oh god] are you ... a gamer ??"

I feel like a lot of people can't differentiate between potential partners that own a console versus whatever gamer addict they're afraid of. thinking about it, that's a decent heuristic given how many gamers bring toxic ideas with them, even if they aren't neglecting other responsibilities for games

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#182

Post by [deleted] »

grogenaut wrote: post #151

I'm trying to get my son and his girlfriend to live at home for a few years post graduation. He wants to move out into a place in seattle. She's a bit more about saving money. The math is that they'd have all loans paid off and a 200k down payment about 4 years out of college if they live with us, and they'd have loans paid off if in 4 years and Important side note: they're both major home bodies so they wouldn't tak…

[deleted]

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#183

Post by leesec »

shimonabi wrote: post #157

I had a pretty rough time between the years 2004 and 2016. I dropped out of college for a career track I dreamt about since childhood and I didn't know what to do with my life. I had no job experience and the recession hit also. If you live in a small country, where everyone is related on average 2.5 degrees away to a random person, it's pretty hard to get a job if you don't have any family connections. After several…

There are an insane number of job openings right now.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#184

Post by atweiden »

prirun wrote: post #105
_fat_santa wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people want to contribute, but the economic system fucks them and makes them dependent. Examples include: the intellectual property regime and monopolistic parasitism of the knowledge commons [1], neoliberal philanthrocapitalism [2] and the completely disgusting and neocolonial division of labour under global capitalism [3]. This line of thinking in my opinion is the problem. Before I start, I will admit I hav…

> I think if anyone truly wants a home and is willing to do whatever they need to in order to get it, they can get it. Same goes for just about everything else, if you want something, and you're willing to do whatever it takes to get it, you can do it. You may be right, but people come in a normal distribution, with most being just average. To "do whatever it takes" implies a person on the extreme right of the distri…

See: 1971 Cost of Living [1].

    New House:                     $25,200.00
    Average Income:                $10,622.00 per year
    New Car:                       $3,560.00
    Average Rent:                  $150.00 per month
    Tuition to Harvard University: $2,600.00 per year
    Movie Ticket:                  $1.50 each
    Gasoline:                      40¢ per gallon
    United States Postage Stamp:   8¢ each
Whether due to currency debasement, globalization, or overpopulation, the disparity in cost of living between the two eras is staggering.

[1]: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#185

Post by vinni2 »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #113

I've got two nephews aged 34 and 32 who still live at home and play video games all the time and rarely leave their rooms. Neither has ever had a job that lasted more than a month or so. Neither ever learned to drive even though they live in a town with little or no public transit. They haven't had any education beyond high school. They seem wholly unprepared to navigate life without their parents. It's a slow motion…

Reminds me of this case https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44215648.amp

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#186

Post by toomuchtodo »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #136
usrusr wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know someone who used to fit that description quite well and then apparently made it out at some point between 35 and 40. Seems like there is always room for a surprise improvement left.

Yeah, well, maybe. But currently they don't seem to have any motivation which is a prerequisite to improvement. I think their parents should provide that motivation by being a good bit tougher on them. They sometimes try this, but then go soft on them again after not very long.

If I may be so bold, I would encourage you to have a frank discussion around estate planning with their parents to best insulate them from pain in the future. I would recommend the home be put into a trust, a trustee appointed for the trust after parents’ deaths, and enough investments set aside to cover property taxes and maintenance on the property with investment income until death of the children. What happens to the estate after that is a family discussion.

I have seen the results of not doing this. Don’t pass the pain down. You want your children to succeed, but you also don’t want them to suffer needlessly. Being homeless is an incredibly difficult gravity well to escape, more so without appreciable skills.

(not an attorney or financial planner, not your attorney or financial planner, please consult one of each, educational purposes only)

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#187

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

cheph wrote: post #11
dijit wrote: post #2

If the goal is gender equality: what's wrong with this? The idea that every able bodied person has to work is not supposed to be the way our society functions; at least not in the last 100,000 years.

> The idea that every able bodied person has to work is not supposed to be the way our society functions; at least not in the last 100,000 years. So the fruit of who's labour exactly are they entitled to then? And can I also get in on that action? I would like to get something other people made without working any more. I don't see why I as a productive member of society should get less than someone who festers in th…

> I don't see why I as a productive member of society should get less than someone who festers in their own bodily fluids.

Do you get less? Because if you're working and you're making less than someone on welfare you have to realize that the solution to that should be lifting you up, not dragging them down, right? As far as I'm aware, welfare isn't exactly comfortable.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#188

Post by kypro »

ajkdhcb2 wrote: post #82
kypro wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We seem to live in an age of such abundance and freedom that it's now possible to live in all manner of ways which seems to exacerbate these extremes. In the past if you were a man and wanted to eat and have a home you had to work. We also relied far more on children to look after us in our old age than we do today. Today welfare and the affordability of essentials like food make it possible for people not to work an…

Where is this socialist paradise that you speak of where you can have a home without working? There is nowhere like what you are saying. It is the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Affordability of essentials has become so much worse that many people can't afford to live a decent life with their own home even if they are working the jobs that they can actually acquire. These people aren't privileged because th…

> It is the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Affordability of essentials has become so much worse that many people can't afford to live a decent life with their own home even if they are working the jobs that they can actually acquire.

Where do you live? Most people I know are literally given homes to live in by the government. Admittedly I'm a working class guy in the UK and I'm not that familiar with the US welfare system so perhaps its quite different there. But for example, my girlfriend's mum has never worked a day in her life but lives in a £600,000 5 bed house. When she went to the job centre last year she was advised not to take part time work because she'd lose out on the benefits.

If these people were starving or homeless, don't you think they would get a job? Today we have a generation of people who have parents rich enough to let them live in their homes rent-free without demanding they get a job while the government is there for you if you decide not to. Is it any surprise some people decide a 9-5 isn't for them?

To your point though, I do accept it's harder to own your own home, but it's certainly not harder to live without a job today. At least not here in the UK.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#189

Post by gnicholas »

plif wrote: post #168
grogenaut wrote: post #151

I'm trying to get my son and his girlfriend to live at home for a few years post graduation. He wants to move out into a place in seattle. She's a bit more about saving money. The math is that they'd have all loans paid off and a 200k down payment about 4 years out of college if they live with us, and they'd have loans paid off if in 4 years and Important side note: they're both major home bodies so they wouldn't tak…

Something about the savings math doesn't check out, especially given the NEET aspect. 200k savings in 4 years out of school is a lot.

Yeah $200k of savings in 4 years is maybe $40k/yr of savings, plus optimistic investment returns for the first 3 years. But GP also mentioned all loans paid off, so that adds another $10-20k/yr, depending on what their loans look like.

It's not impossible to save that much money straight out of school, but if you're making that much then you could still save a decent chunk even if you're paying $2k/mo for an apartment (which comes to $100k over 4 years).

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#190

Post by CapmCrackaWaka »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #39
CydeWeys wrote: post #36

Part of this problem is our societal failure to build enough housing to keep up with the increasing number of people, with a resulting increase in housing costs that has significantly outpaced the median wage. If you can't afford to live on your own, and can't afford housing where the jobs are located, then you're more likely to live with your parents and be unemployed.

Adding to this, we've also abandoned the idea of building out in the middle of nowhere and linking it to a city center with a rail line. I'd gladly buy a cheap home in the boonies if I could take a train into work instead of driving.

I personally believe this will be more common in the future, but I’m less convinced of a rail connection. I think with the increasing popularity of working from home, availability of utilities (satellite internet, solar power) in more rural places and the relative cost of rural land, people will start settling a few hours outside larger cities without having to sacrifice much in terms of quality of life.
Post reply on HN