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

Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

consumeraffairs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 314 posts

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#201

Post by geysersam »

mf_tomb wrote: post #178
nerdponx wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could not agree more. I won't romanticize 1950s or 1970s cheap junk products compared to 1990s cheap junk products or 2020s cheap junk products, but something definitely has changed. Here's how I like to argue it: TVs might be cheaper "per unit of TV", but it's also difficult to just buy a basic TV. This is also offset intensely by "shrinkflation", which applies as much to durable goods (cheapening components) as i…

It's conspiratorial to assume that advertising and marketing is responsible for the status quo, rather than it being reflective of the genuine preferences of consumers to have new toys. Consumer preference has rewarded lowest-common-denominator dopamine trains in basically every facet of modern life. See the gaming industry with microtransactions/lootboxes, or entertainment with the move towards short-form content.

It's not conspiratorial to assume marketing influences behavior. That's its purpose.

Size of the impact is up for debate. But consider how many large business sectors have advertisement as their primary income.

It's not for nothing.

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#202

Post by fleddr »

It's a simplified conclusion, but the era in which a mail man could support an entire family with ease was a historical anomaly.

You can pinpoint the timeline exactly, where the above wealth stagnates or declines whilst the rest of the world is rapidly catching up, industrializing.

You can locally optimize but not even taxing the rich for 90% will fix this.

My other simplified conclusion is that everything that you need seems to be getting ever more expensive whilst everything that you do not necessarily need becomes dirt cheap.

We should probably spend some more time thinking about that. Everything becomes cheaper due to spectacular advances, but not housing, healthcare, energy, education, tax levels.

I mean, it's almost as if some invisible force blocks this progress, benefiting from artificial scarcity. Almost as if we're not supposed to have it good.

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#203

Post by Kaze404 »

lettergram wrote: post #38

To be fair, most (the vast majority) of people I know in gen z I know works significantly less hard than my parents did, I did, etc. Those who do work hard are fairly well off. They work two jobs, didn’t go to college, but own their homes and have a steady income. There’s definitely systemic issues, but work ethic is the major issue. And that’s a cultural issue. Would you want the gen z you know building your house?…

This might sound like an extreme take, but I want people who don’t work hard to be able to live.

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#204

Post by nightski »

acdha wrote: post #145
nightski wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Median after tax income per capita in the U.S. is really high as well, almost at the top.

Less so after you correct for all of the things which we have to pay for out of pocket: health insurance, copays, drugs, etc. but also things like education, childcare, retirement, transportation, and often housing. I’ve known a number of people from Europe or Asia and all of them commented on how they thought they’d be making more here based on the raw income numbers, and how much more stressful it was here because…

A lot of those things are based on life circumstances. If you have a large family in a major metropolitan area making the median income then yeah you might be worse off.

If you are a tech worker in a small city or town then it can be quite lucrative. You have a lot of control over these variables, especially when younger.

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#205

Post by peoplefromibiza »

ekianjo wrote: post #102
telchior wrote: post #59

One of the items this article doesn't cover is healthcare spending, which has increased between 2 and 8 times since 1980 (depending on whether you're looking at individual spending or share of GDP). Here's a decent collection of charts: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe... It has been shocking to me to see how cheap and effective healthcare can be in other countries, from an emergency visit…

> In the US, healthcare is effectively a collection of cartels Not just in the US. For example there's a huge glasses cartel in France with specialists that are protected by the government and make pairs of glasses cost 500~1000 USD with very little reimbursement, while in Japan private companies (that actually compete against each other's) let you have glasses for 60~70 USD all included. You are literally better off…

according to the stats it is true that in France glasses and lenses are expensive, but not that expensive as you claim.

It's between 50 and 250 euros, depending on the brand.

For a pair of Prada or Louis Vuitton sunglasses you can easily spend 350-500 euros, but luxury brands are expensive by definition.

Anyway you pay for glasses and lenses once and then you're good for years.

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#206

Post by wyre »

WalterBright wrote: post #186
notch656a wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would take straight up communism health care or ancap pay-or-die unregulated over our current bastardized system that combines the worst aspects of both.

Really? I remember a thread on reddit about the HBO series Chernobyl. A lot of posters who lived through it commented. One I recall said that root canals were free in the USSR, but you didn't get any anesthetic. Another commented that the hospital stay was free, but you had to bribe the nurses to take care of you. Having had a root canal myself, it's "no thanks" to free communist health care.

I’d rather suffer through it and live, than die because I couldn’t afford it.

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#207

Post by cameronh90 »

curo wrote: post #153
telchior wrote: post #59

One of the items this article doesn't cover is healthcare spending, which has increased between 2 and 8 times since 1980 (depending on whether you're looking at individual spending or share of GDP). Here's a decent collection of charts: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe... It has been shocking to me to see how cheap and effective healthcare can be in other countries, from an emergency visit…

I've heard this so often yet we left the UK for no other reason than the healthcare. My wife was pregnant and the experience from 0-7 months was so terrible, we flew to the US to have the child. Post-operative outcomes and survival rates in the US are far better than in the UK and many European countries. Statistics about better birth outcomes or higher longevity is best attributed to healthier lifestyles in Europe/U…

IHS is £624/yr, and what do you mean by NHS-specific tax?

Overall, I probably pay more towards the NHS than I would for healthcare in the US, because I'm a comparatively high earner, and that's the nature of progressive taxation. The NHS seems fairly good value for money, however, although I think that may be due to how much we underpay nurses and doctors.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience. Many people do, and the service's deficiencies are widely publicised domestically. Even at its best, the service has always been a bit rough around the edges - not like the beautiful hospitals with friendly service that you often get by going private.

However, what people like so much about the NHS here is the universality and lack of barriers to access. If you're sick, you just walk in and get treatment - doesn't matter who you are, no charges, no paperwork, no insurance or anything else. Unfortunately, even accessing care is becoming more difficult in recent years. Increasingly people I know are relying on private insurance or self funding to get treatment in a reasonable timeframe.

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#208

Post by ceejayoz »

WalterBright wrote: post #177
tstrimple wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your theory that medical research and innovation is why it's so outrageously expensive to get stitches to close a wound?

The expense comes from the cost of poor people getting free emergency room treatment getting passed on to the paying customers.

No, it doesn't.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06147-9

> The overall mean for charity care as percent of total expenses was 2.62% for for-profit hospitals compared with 2.95% for nonprofit hospitals...

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#209

Post by serf »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #110
krustyburger wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of low-mileage 90s cars are on the market. If you’re being sincere, just filter by low mileage and single owner and you’ll find your dream car.

But since they're not being made in 2022, getting parts for them in 2040 will be fraught.

pick a slightly more expensive car from that era that has an enthusiast fan-base; aftermarket parts will be available indefinitely.

no problem finding parts for my (very old) Honda or the (very much older) VW beetle that's in the family.

Re: Gen Z have 86% less purchasing power compared to baby boomers in their twenties

#210

Post by Panzer04 »

throwayyy479087 wrote: post #4

This doesnt pass the sniff test.

I don't know why you're downvoted - You're correct, even some basic common sense should show that we aren't buying 86% less stuff today than in the 70s.

And that conclusion is born through when you actually read the article, they completely misrepresent reality with that title. It's kind of astounding how many people are just taking it as face value.

Post reply on HN