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

42% of adults rely on their parents for financial support

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 289 posts

Re: 42% of adults rely on their parents for financial support

#111

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

thisislife2 wrote: post #78
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might, however, be a nice thing to aspire to, no? Economic self-sufficiency doesn't have to imply atomization, I think.

I am not sure - in my experience, I've observed that the more money you have the less people care about relations (their social circle becomes smaller) and healthy co-dependency reduces. This is more true of the young. Human nature tends to be selfish, which is not conducive for a healthy society. Young people becoming financially-independent at an early age may negate opportunities for self-introspection on that - w…

I don't agree with your characterization of "human nature". I mostly disagree that there is any such thing, and to the extent that there is, it seems to me that it is more like: cooperative, altruistic, empathic within the in-group, aggressive, selfish and uncooperative with the out-group.

The great work of human civilization is to expand the size of the in-group.

Re: 42% of adults rely on their parents for financial support

#112

Post by paytonjjones »

slibhb wrote: post #80

Downward mobility is almost entirely caused by housing costs, which are a self-inflicted problem. We don't, as a matter of intentional policy, build enough housing. I live in an expensive area and I'm always shocked by how many of my friends who cannot afford to buy a home (or even a condo) are NIMBYs. These are people in their 20s through 40s who have been earning since college, can't afford to buy, yet get annoyed…

A big political problem with YIMBYism is that almost by definition it will take years to see the effects.

If you champion it as a politician, there's a very large chance you get all the flack for new developments, but the next guy gets all the credit for affordable housing.

Texas seems to be the only place that actually does it, and I honestly have no explanation for why.

Re: 42% of adults rely on their parents for financial support

#113

Post by alphawhisky »

jayGlow wrote: post #106
Animats wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't, as a matter of intentional policy, build enough housing. If actual number of houses was the problem, house prices would not be increasing in areas of population decline. It's existing houses being repriced upward by speculation that makes them unaffordable.

are these areas with declining populations and rising housing prices increasing the number of houses? it could be that the population declines because no one can afford to live there however it's still a desirable area so prices remain high. cities like Austin are seeing reduction in housing prices despite population increase due to construction of new housing.

That only covers a portion of the population. Don't forget the middle of nowhere towns that refuse to tax their citizens (but eat grant money like pigs) and refuse to allow new housing. All of this is essentially being done to maximize property value and keep new people out. This is why people are moving to cities in the US. Not a desire, but a need in order to make ends meet and get on the property ladder.

Re: 42% of adults rely on their parents for financial support

#114

Post by thegrim33 »

Animats wrote: post #88
slibhb wrote: post #80

Downward mobility is almost entirely caused by housing costs, which are a self-inflicted problem. We don't, as a matter of intentional policy, build enough housing. I live in an expensive area and I'm always shocked by how many of my friends who cannot afford to buy a home (or even a condo) are NIMBYs. These are people in their 20s through 40s who have been earning since college, can't afford to buy, yet get annoyed…

> We don't, as a matter of intentional policy, build enough housing. If actual number of houses was the problem, house prices would not be increasing in areas of population decline. It's existing houses being repriced upward by speculation that makes them unaffordable.

Anyone with 60 seconds of free time can trivially see that your claims hold no water.

Simply Google for cities/areas with declining population, choose one, look up average housing prices there over the last 10 years or so, see how they've changed, correct the figures for inflation, and you'll see that in almost all cases inflation-adjusted prices are lower today in those places than they were 10 years ago.

Re: 42% of adults rely on their parents for financial support

#115

Post by taeric »

slibhb wrote: post #80

Downward mobility is almost entirely caused by housing costs, which are a self-inflicted problem. We don't, as a matter of intentional policy, build enough housing. I live in an expensive area and I'm always shocked by how many of my friends who cannot afford to buy a home (or even a condo) are NIMBYs. These are people in their 20s through 40s who have been earning since college, can't afford to buy, yet get annoyed…

I highly challenge this. For a region, industry booms drive upward movement. And regions that are only held by one industry when it busts build rust belts.

Ideally, you have industry for a region treated like a well balanced investment portfolio. But you have to internalize that balancing investment portfolios is is a protection against downside risks. And it specifically loses against the lucky portfolio that was heavy on something during a boom.

So, the question heavily looms on if the regions we are looking at are diverse enough that they can sustain some downturns.

Re: 42% of adults rely on their parents for financial support

#116

Post by toast0 »

dyauspitr wrote: post #71
rconti wrote: post #64

When I was a kid, we never had a ton of extra money, but my parents were very supportive-- they paid for most of my college expenses, for example. Their outlook was that us kids shouldn't have to work-- "school is your job". (However, both my sister and I _did_ have jobs while in school). However, I never _asked_ my parents for money. I had a good education and a well-paying job, and was able to turn IPO money into a…

I have never asked my parents for money. They have had to resort to trickery (asking for bank details for some passport stuff) to send me money. I hope to be able to do the same for my kid.

Always check the pockets of jackets before donating!

My mom snuck $100 in a jacket my wife almost donated without realizing.

Re: 42% of adults rely on their parents for financial support

#117

Post by shevy-java »

The biggest problem here is finding secure and reliable income in the long term. People here in the 1960s, for instance, could save up quite a lot of money. This is of course possible today too, but what if you can only find low income jobs? You'll remain working poor for the rest of your life. That's not exactly fair from an inter-generational point of view. Meanwhile the number of superrich is growing. That's also unfair. And money buys legislation, so (many, but not all) democracies are broken.

Re: 42% of adults rely on their parents for financial support

#118

Post by medvezhenok »

Animats wrote: post #88
slibhb wrote: post #80

Downward mobility is almost entirely caused by housing costs, which are a self-inflicted problem. We don't, as a matter of intentional policy, build enough housing. I live in an expensive area and I'm always shocked by how many of my friends who cannot afford to buy a home (or even a condo) are NIMBYs. These are people in their 20s through 40s who have been earning since college, can't afford to buy, yet get annoyed…

> We don't, as a matter of intentional policy, build enough housing. If actual number of houses was the problem, house prices would not be increasing in areas of population decline. It's existing houses being repriced upward by speculation that makes them unaffordable.

Not necessarily.

House occupancy laws also have a role here - some of the living arrangements that ended up in higher density in the past are illegal today, forcing population decline in a given area (which is not necessarily equivalent to _demand_ decline)

Re: 42% of adults rely on their parents for financial support

#119

Post by ripe »

nullorempty wrote: post #38

[flagged]

> STOP spending on immigration programs... to improve situation for kids of the people who built out the western civilization

The common misconception that the US Government is wasting money on immigration is pushed by Trump and FOX News, who both lie regularly. For example, see [1] about how Trump rejected a report produced by Federal researchers. The report is available [2].

Overall, the refugee resettlement program gives the country back many times what the government spends. And even if you just focus on the expenditure, the bulk of it is on border enforcement and imprisonment, which goes to domestic private companies.

As to your love for "the people who built western civilization", I'll just leave it up there. Your connotation is clear, and it doesn't reflect well on you.

[1] Trump administration rejects report showing positive impact of refugees

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-reve...

[2] Rejected Report Shows Revenue Brought In by Refugees. SEPT. 19, 2017: A draft of a study rejected by Trump administration officials that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/19/us/politics/d...

Re: 42% of adults rely on their parents for financial support

#120

Post by s1artibartfast »

Animats wrote: post #88
slibhb wrote: post #80

Downward mobility is almost entirely caused by housing costs, which are a self-inflicted problem. We don't, as a matter of intentional policy, build enough housing. I live in an expensive area and I'm always shocked by how many of my friends who cannot afford to buy a home (or even a condo) are NIMBYs. These are people in their 20s through 40s who have been earning since college, can't afford to buy, yet get annoyed…

> We don't, as a matter of intentional policy, build enough housing. If actual number of houses was the problem, house prices would not be increasing in areas of population decline. It's existing houses being repriced upward by speculation that makes them unaffordable.

How do you separate speculation from legitimate price increases? If the houses are overpriced due to speculation, why isn't someone building Alternatives and undercutting them? This implies that there is either a real increase in value, a manufactur bottleneck, or both
Post reply on HN