Live data from Hacker News

The Cheapest Generation

theatlantic.com

181–190 of 213 posts

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#181

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…

U.S. context: In aggregate the "last generation(s)" chose to spend their money abroad and on themselves (e.g. foreign-produced consumer goods), rather than on the next generation (e.g. infrastructure, education, living wage, healthcare). Witness the result.

Certain sectors of the economy are doing well. The aggregate economy is tanking.

Individuals will find their way, more or less effectively. The lauded "U.S.A." may well not remain what their parents envisioned -- probably quite often really in turn that generation's parents' vision assumed whole by those children and presumed, without much critical thought, to somehow be "inviolate", no matter their (those children, the current generation's parents) own personal actions.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upvoted you for being the only response with numbers so far, even though I disagree with your conclusion. The average price of a new car in 1980 was $7,200 [1]. In 2010, it's $28,400 [2]. That's an almost 300% increase. Federal minimum wage in 1980 was $3.10 [3]. In 2010, it's $7.25, a 130% increase. That's lagging pretty far behind new car prices. You point out that fewer people are earning minimum wage now than in…

If car ownership increased, but sales of new cars fell, it implies people are keeping the same car for more time. The employment to population ratio is the same as it was during the 80's, and was considerably higher until the recent recession. In contrast, the fraction of people earning min wage has fallen. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EMRATIO Further, adjusting wages (rather than total comp) for infla…

Quibbling about the exact source of inflation is irrelevant unless you want to claim that people are not buying cars or houses because they are buying health care instead.

And that is clearly not the case. According to government statistics [1], nearly one-third of those lacking health care coverage in the United States are young adults. The unemployment rate among this cohort is over 15 percent, and much higher if one looks at U6. And those who are employed are collecting lower wages which are not offset by higher benefits: less than 25 percent of young workers are provided health insurance through their jobs as compared with over 57 percent for the rest of the labor force.

Put simply, breaking down aggregate statistics into demographic chunks gives a much better picture of what is really happening. Younger works have it really hard these days. Older (employed) people are still doing OK and they are the ones pulling up the aggregate income figures. But for young people -- the focus of this article -- the data supports Thaumaturgy's argument that younger people these days are simply poorer.

[1] http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/16/pf/health-care-young-adults/...

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#183
Amidst all the arguments about whether or not it's due to the economy, the truth is really that all decisions like this are economically based; the real question is whether the trends created and influenced by the economic downturn will persist after the economy recovers.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#184

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.

"Minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. Debt financed consumption."

You're right that minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. You're also right that debt financed (a lot of) consumption. But it doesn't follow that those earning minimum wage drove consumption by acquiring debt.

As yummyfajitas links above show, those earning minimum wage are a tiny percentage of overall wage earners. In other words, minimum wage earners aren't going to move the needle much. Double minimum wage (and magically don't have that affect employment levels) and consumption isn't going to go up all that much, simply because there aren't that many people earning minimum wage. For that reason, it is a bit of a silly metric to base an argument on.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#185
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

...lowering our expectations to below those of our parents. Go read the article I linked to. We are richer than our parents. We own more and bigger houses and cars than they owned. To fix your analogy: "Next quarter's numbers will be higher, and shareholders are just going to accept 10% growth rather than 20%. Expecting 20% growth forever is unrealistic." If you want to argue that growth should have been higher than…

I agree that growth forever is unrealistic. I'm referring to the fact that growth has stalled for everyone below a certain bracket, but is continuing apace for everyone above.

This has been true for a very long time, but people were filling it in with debt. Then everything got over-extended and collapsed.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#186
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I know a lot of professional people in my generation, and I know of only a few that have anything like what you describe.

One managed to land a six-figure job in Kentucky, one of the lowest cost of living places that was largely passed over by the housing bubble. The major reason he's well-off is that his house was affordable and he went to a lower priced university and didn't need much in the way of student loans. He lives in a ~2000 sq. ft. house that cost about $175k when he bought it. Where I live that house would be $400k, and it's not even a major city. Median incomes where I live are no higher.

Another had a liquidity event. Another owns a hugely successful online company.

The vast majority -- vast majority -- of the peers I know do not live anything like what you describe. These are not slackers either. These are hard working, highly educated professionals. Many of them routinely pull 60 hour work weeks doing things like computer programming, business, marketing, and high-end interior design for wealthy clients.

I honestly have no idea how people making the median family income can live, unless they live in horrible neighborhoods or in the middle of nowhere.

I didn't say "Earth to Planet Trust Fund" just to be snarky. There is a culture of people who grew up with wealthy parents, had mostly paid for rides to places like MIT, and earn six figures, and really do have kind of a "why do they not eat cake?" view on this stuff. In my experience they're not bad people. They're just insulated and ignorant. They have absolutely no idea what they're talking about if they think their situation is anywhere near normal.

Again, public enemy #1 here is the housing bubble, which from an income/value ratio point of view is still in effect. #2 is the cost of college. The former has increased somewhat in quality since the previous generation, though not enough to justify a quadrupling (or more) in cost. The latter hasn't increased much in quality at all, but the cost has skyrocketed.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#187
post #166
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.

The basic problem with coastal markets (and a few inland ones) is that building regulation has messed up the housing market by making it impossible to build enough to meet demand, as Matt Yglesias describes in The Rent is Too Damn High and Edward Gleaser describes in The Triumph of the City.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

It's interesting. I believe it's going to be a crisis, at least here in Canada, where our boomer bulge is the largest in the world. Much like our southern neighbours, our soon-to-be-retirees don't have much in savings, and the vast majority of their net-worth is tied up in their homes. Unlike the US, we haven't had a housing price adjustment yet. So these boomers are counting on having the current value of their home…

>When every boomer actually has half, or worse, the amount of money to retire as they thought?

Goldman buys them all up at a bargain rate and rents them to those of us who can afford to not live in the global megaslum?

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#189
post #166
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.

That's a valid point, but I didn't know there were any tech hubs or otherwise interesting places with jobs that had house prices like that. That is lower than small Midwestern cities with lousier economies. Why is housing so affordable in Texas? Lack of stupid regulations? Loads of land?

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bureaucra…

Also, space. If you have kids, space will become more important.

As soon as you even think about having kids, absolutely everything about how the suburbs are designed suddenly makes sense.

I still prefer an urban setting though.

Post reply on HN