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

The Cheapest Generation

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 213 posts

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#111

Post by yummyfajitas »

specialist wrote: post #102
yummyfajitas wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minimum wage is a silly thing to look at. In 1980, 10% of men and 22% of women earned min wage. In 2010, this fell to 5% and 7%. http://www.statista.com/statistics/185536/share-of-workers-p... Further, a look at hard data (for both the bottom 20% and the middle 20%) shows that people today are more likely to own a car than in 1981, and have more house per person than in 1989 (no data on square footage exists in 1981)…

Really? AEI? Minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. Debt financed consumption. You're trying too hard. This stuff isn't that complicated.

The numbers all come from the American Housing Survey and Consumer Expenditure Survey. Are you claiming they are incorrect? Or are you merely stating your dislike for AEI?

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#112

Post by seiji »

How can we reconcile "everybody is poor now" with all the teenage millionaires and 22 year olds moving to California for six figure salaries?

Is everything we read here such an extreme case that the rest of the world has no chance of catching up or competing (except in the überextreme sport of Startup)?

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#113

Post by CWuestefeld »

euroclydon wrote: post #67
CWuestefeld wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trend for mass transit is to remove options from travelers, thus making itself less useful to us. As such, it's hardly worth funding. [1] That's not to say that it must be inherently so. Just that, so long as these projects are typical government projects that are expected to go over-budget and over-deadline with no repercussions, they will be used as a tool for political favors and cronyism, at our expense. [1]…

Of course, the die was cast in the 40s, 50s, and 60s for the automobile. It's impossible to build effective mass transit to serve a low density population. But the argument should not be whether or not to build ineffective mass transit layered on top of low density sprawling metro areas, but instead about what are our nation's transit and residential goals in the long term, like next sixty years -- because you eventu…

Sure, I'm not arguing against the idea itself. My concern is how to approach it without it continuing to fester as a slush bucket for cronyism.

Today, the actual effect is not addressing actual "transit and residential goals". It's to funnel tax dollars to entities favored by the bureaucrats -- return the favor for campaign donations and so on (how else to explain that they've universally cost so much more than we agree to pay, yet they fail so dismally at attracting riders?).

So I believe that we need to find out how the system continues to be corrupted, so that we can go forward with a plan that can be reasonably expected to be successful. Following this pattern just digs us a deeper fiscal hole, without doing very much to address the real goal.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#114

Post by DonnyV »

brown9-2 wrote: post #37
JoelSutherland wrote: post #25

In 1985 the average age of a car on the road was about 6 years. In 2012, the average age is over 11 years. This has a number of obvious implications on new-car purchasing behavior of young people: 1. It's much easier to buy a used car now since they have more years of service in them. 2. Getting a hand-me-down from a relative is possible. 3. Culturally, getting a new car is much more rare so there is less pressure to…

A bit ironic for the car companies that their progress in reliability of a vehicle as it ages ends up biting them in new car sales.

Thats because they had to compete with foreign cars. Everyone started buying foreign cars cause they lasted longer.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#115

Post by arethuza »

shanelja wrote: post #100
arethuza wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's over 65 in England: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Publictranspo...

Fair enough, but in the same way, these people are in a much better position than me and yet get this benefit which I don't, yet I'm also forced to pay taxes.

There are occasional grumbles from the right about means testing free bus passes, but it would probably lose a lot of votes and I suspect the increased bureaucracy would mean that hardly any money would be saved.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#116

Post by hieronymusN »

stephengillie wrote: post #99
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 21, live in New York City, and let my driver's licence lapse over a year ago. I don't plan on owning a house, preferring to drive my surplus wealth into assets I understand better and which don't restrict my mobility, and don't care to own a car. This is not economically motivated - I have comfortable free cash flow and a healthy balance sheet free of personal debt. I pay for a car service and take taxis more tha…

[I] live in New York City ... and don't care to own a car. Your lack of desire for a car has a LOT more to do with living in NYC than your age or social status. You sound just like friends of mine from NYC.

Counterpoint: I live in NYC because I don't like driving and hate commuting. If I was into cars and houses, I would live in California or Texas.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#117

Post by tacogordito »

api wrote: post #90
yummyfajitas wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry that stats about what people actually consume disagree with your vague speculation about what stuff should cost. If we "feel barely middle class", it's because our expectations and desires have grown faster than our means. It's not because we have less than some historical cohort.

This is exactly what both the left and the right are propagandizing the middle class to do: lower expectations. In some cases, it means lowering our expectations to below those of our parents. Think about that for a minute. Find me a corporation or an entrepreneur who thinks like this. Imagine a CEO saying this to shareholders and the board: "We didn't make our goals this quarter, and many in our industry also showed…

I can't help but nitpick. Companies lower guidance and expectations all the time. Share price almost always falls when this happen, but it's not uncommon and not cause for the CEO being ousted.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&#3...

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#118

Post by jwoah12 »

mojuba wrote: post #105
stephengillie wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[I] live in New York City ... and don't care to own a car. Your lack of desire for a car has a LOT more to do with living in NYC than your age or social status. You sound just like friends of mine from NYC.

Or rather, his living in NYC particularly has a lot to do with his age, social status and preferences. People like him prefer big cities because they don't want to own cars. So it's the other way around.

That's a pretty bold generalization. "People like him" prefer big cities for a lot of diverse reasons, most of which are probably not that they do not want to own a car. Not needing to own a car is a result of the convenience of a big city--having everything you need within walking/transit distance. That is the reason I live in NYC.

Edit: last sentence was unclear

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#119

Post by shanelja »

shanelja wrote: post #100
arethuza wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's over 65 in England: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Publictranspo...

Fair enough, but in the same way, these people are in a much better position than me and yet get this benefit which I don't, yet I'm also forced to pay taxes.

I agree, I believe it would be best if everyone paid the same cost, then no one could say it was unfair. Although I'm sure that someone else would be in the position I am complaining about it, so maybe I should just accept that for now at least, I will have to struggle.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#120

Post by tatsuke95 »

api wrote: post #90
yummyfajitas wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry that stats about what people actually consume disagree with your vague speculation about what stuff should cost. If we "feel barely middle class", it's because our expectations and desires have grown faster than our means. It's not because we have less than some historical cohort.

This is exactly what both the left and the right are propagandizing the middle class to do: lower expectations. In some cases, it means lowering our expectations to below those of our parents. Think about that for a minute. Find me a corporation or an entrepreneur who thinks like this. Imagine a CEO saying this to shareholders and the board: "We didn't make our goals this quarter, and many in our industry also showed…

>"We didn't make our goals this quarter, and many in our industry also showed reduced sales numbers. It is clear that we need to reduce our expectations. Next quarter's numbers will be lower, and shareholders are just going to have to take a loss."

Uh, they do say that all the time.

I tend to agree with the other poster: our expectations are too high. It's a product of having witnessed one of the greatest runups in wealth (and debt) we've ever seen in history.

A 2500 sqft house, two (or three) cars, regular vacations to Europe or the warm south, maybe a summer house, boats, motorcycles and other toys...these things are now expected by the "middle class". It's completely out of whack with history and the rest of the planet.

So whether you choose to lower your expectations or not has no bearing on what will actually happen. We're going to have a deleveraging run where the average Westerner is, as a whole, poorer than the generation before us.

Post reply on HN