The Cheapest Generation • Hacker News Board

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#161

Post by kapitalx » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:05 PM UTC

tgypsy wrote: post #35

One word: insurance. Rates for drivers under 25 are upwards of $200/mo in most urban areas, and that's for the utmost basic 'one-way coverage' insurance. Under one-way, if you are deemed even partially at fault in an accident, however minor, the insurance pays the other's bill only - and essentially ensures you cannot drive for the next three years as premiums quite literally skyrocket. Anecdote from my university ye…

As I was reading your post I said to myself, this person must live in Canada! turns out I was right :)

I used to live in Toronto, bought my first car when I was 20, got into an accident at 21; I couldn't afford insurance and hence a car again until I moved to the US at 23. It isn't the same here, my wife and I now pay $200 every 6 months which is 3rd party and liability (the one-way you mention) and convers both of us. Also 1 accident in every 3 years is forgiven. (I live in California)

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#162

Post by ef4 » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:07 PM UTC

bencpeters wrote: post #128

mfringel wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, for those of us who know nothing about bikes, why are steel frames suboptimal for commuting?

They aren't, IMO. They don't weigh much more (and seriously what kind of commute do you have that weight matters that much? This isn't the tour de france...) The ride of a decent steel bike is much softer (less harsh) than an aluminum bike. An old steel 10 speed with tension shifters (less fiddly/adjustment prone) is my idea of a perfect commuter bike...

Was about to post the same thing but you said it all.

Steel vs aluminum is like vi vs emacs. People argue about it all the time, but if you just go test ride some bikes you'll find out pretty quite which you prefer.

I like steel. Aluminum is just too bone-jarring.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#163

Post by TheFuture » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:08 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #131

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.

A global trend amplified by us "Millenials" in the U.S. is a preference for urbanisation. Contrary to past generations, I don't plan on ever giving up the pace and energy of the metropolis. Thus our (and my) psychological shift could be explained as simply as a preference for the hyper-connected urban lifestyle, with decreasing home and car ownership flowing from that change in preferences rather than a direct change…

> I don't plan on ever giving up the pace and energy of the metropolis

Until you have kids, and you see how most urban school districts are run. This is the same reason our parents left the city and moved to the burbs. Things are not really as different now as we think.

Though now there is a huge opportunity to reduce the cost and drastically improve K12 education. If our generation can break the entrenched bureaucracy of public education, then I would say urbanization in the US could be more than a consequence of Gen Y being poor and delaying starting a family.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#164

Post by JonnieCache » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:10 PM UTC

tatsuke95 wrote: post #147

JonnieCache wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What incentive do we have then, to not forcibly extract that wealth from the previous generation? To me it seems that if we need to de-leverage, why on earth should we pay these people their pensions? All the intergenerational trust and good faith is already gone anyway. Note: the views casually related above may or may not represent the actual considered opinions of the management.

> "What incentive do we have then, to not forcibly extract that wealth from the previous generation?" We do have the incentive. And we will extract that wealth. But it takes time, since "they" currently have the political power. What you describe is what is happening in the real world. Reform everywhere so they get the pensions and benefits, but nobody after them will. This is happening both publicly and privately. E…

>We'll have the last laugh, though. Eventually the boomers will need to divest. At that point they'll find out we don't have the money to buy their assets.

Hadn't thought of that. Might be quite funny...

I suppose they'll just give it to their offspring. So for now... kill rich kids? Just brainstorming here.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#165

Post by tatsuke95 » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:10 PM UTC

trhtrsh wrote: post #134

tatsuke95 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

I make high middle class money and I don't know anyone in my peer group who has "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". You are describing the upper echelon of lawyers and execs.

I'm going to go out on a limb with an assumption: the fact that you hang out here probably says a lot about you and your socio-economic status and general intelligence, which relates to your financial sense.

But there were/are a generation of blue-collar, "middle class" people out there living the life I describe. I know some of them. They aren't lawyers and execs, they're public servants, unionized factory workers and such, most of whom make less money than me. Their boomer parents were middle-class wealthy, and their expectations are higher. Only the economy no longer supports it. So they fulfilled these expectations via copious amounts of debt. Then everything broke.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#166

Post by runako » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:11 PM UTC

api wrote: post #72

Myself and many other "millennials" are very reluctant to "buy" such things because they can't. What we can do is go into massive, enslaving, soul-crushing debt for them, something the smart ones are justifiably reluctant to do. Real estate hyperinflation is particularly bad. A house is unthinkable to anyone under 40 unless: a) they've had a liquidity event, inherited money, or have a big trust fund. b) they are will…

Or d) they are willing to move out of the top 5-10 mostly coastal real estate markets. For instance, tech hub Austin, TX has a median home price of $122k. The payment on that will be around $1k-$1100/mo including taxes etc. You'll find very similar numbers in places like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Raleigh, etc.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#167

Post by bsphil » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:12 PM UTC

thaumaturgy wrote: post #48

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that 78 hours of minimum wage work could pay the rent in 1980, compared to 109 hours in 2010 [1], along with the other associated cost-of-living increases over the last three decades that have come without comparable increases in wages. I doubt that most people who felt financially secure and could afford a new car wouldn't want to own a new car. Nobody really enjoys drivin…

>If you can afford little, you might as well have as much fun as you can, especially if your prospects for making more money in the near future aren't that good.

Not enough people understand this concept, and it's been documented from at least the Great Depression from what I'm aware of.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#168

Post by bsphil » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:13 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #78

thaumaturgy wrote: post #48

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that 78 hours of minimum wage work could pay the rent in 1980, compared to 109 hours in 2010 [1], along with the other associated cost-of-living increases over the last three decades that have come without comparable increases in wages. I doubt that most people who felt financially secure and could afford a new car wouldn't want to own a new car. Nobody really enjoys drivin…

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…

>live in New York City

MYSTERY SOLVED.

Of course you don't want to own a car in NYC.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#169

Post by mikestew » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:14 PM UTC

MengYuanLong wrote: post #57

Swizec wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> younger generations don't see a house or a car as a symbol of status or wealth, merely as something to be used, as a necessity And then there are fixies - impractical bikes that cost 700 euro simply because they are cool. Whereas you can get a practical bike for less than 200 euro. Maybe it is that we are cheap, so those things that cost beyond a certain threshold (like cars and housing) just need to work, whereas…

You may feel fixies are impractical but they carry benefits. The primary one being better power transfer. Second, you can often make a cheap fixie by finding an old frame, refurbishing it, and replacing the rear hub. Yes, you can buy them for $700+ but unlike iPhones, there are a number of ways to obtain one for cheap. Further, a bike that costs less than $200 is certainly not a bike I would buy for commuting. Having…

> I can assure you that steel frames are not your friend

Speaking as one who spent $3500 on a steel-framed commuting/winter training bike, I obviously disagree. Aluminum rides rough and carbon is just silly on a commuter.

Though to give you the benefit of the doubt, you did mention "<$200". I think that's more the issue than what the frame is made of.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#170

Post by njharman » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:15 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #131

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.

A global trend amplified by us "Millenials" in the U.S. is a preference for urbanisation. Contrary to past generations, I don't plan on ever giving up the pace and energy of the metropolis. Thus our (and my) psychological shift could be explained as simply as a preference for the hyper-connected urban lifestyle, with decreasing home and car ownership flowing from that change in preferences rather than a direct change…

> I don't plan on ever

The thing with age that young(er) people will never believe is that you change. It really doesn't matter what you think or believe now. It is unlikely to remain constant for 20 years.