Live data from Hacker News

Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

pandodaily.com

111–120 of 183 posts

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can achieve 4% investing in large cap dividend payers. The dividends alone can be 4%, and any price appreciation on top of that is gravy. Though of course, you have to diversify and thus put an immense amount of research in many companies.

Yeah if you are smart with your money you can still get close to 4% nominal which is about 2% real (inflation adjusted) and is what I used in my calculations. The previous generation used to be able to get 6% to 7% nominal.

My point is the Fed is significantly screwing around with the debt market which hurting anyone that invests in low risk loans (Treasuries, savings accounts, CDs, etc.). This doesn't have to be the case. Sure you might be "smart" and figure out how to get a 6% return, but reward for that 6% vs the risk is also lowered by fed activity.

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#112
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The punchline, of course, is that retirement won't be a realistic option for our generation at 60. 25-75 leaves 50 working years, and that's what it'll probably take so we can pay for the boomer generation to retire and also save for our own. And I don't think it's a bad thing. It's patently ridiculous for a person to spend half their life not working, why should it involve less than an unreasonable savings rate to d…

That is my conclusion too. I hope I can still code at 70.

To still code at 70, you may need to code a little less now. By that, I mean make sure to get up from your computer from time to time and get plenty of physical exercise.

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#113
This may be OT but it relates to survivalism for our generation (I'm 20). As I get older, like the OP, I'm seeing Entrepreneurialism and, personally, Agorism as two of the many strategies that should be focused on to influence people, mostly non statist capilists who don't innovate as much as they should, to change their philosophies so that disruptions, subsidies, and investments can occur in various other markets here in Puerto Rico besides the pharmaceutical.

I don't classify myself as libertarian, I'm all about direct democracy and believe highly in sovereignty, however the ongoing regulations and the centralization and manipulation of the housing sector, the energy sector, and the food and liquor sector here in PR have gone overboard just like in the states and it has lead me to believe that all of this is caused by us submitting into conformity after we have generate a bit of passive income without focusing on taking down some barriers and instead we're maneuvering around them.

Why the hell does someone that has a self sufficient house, windmills, solar panels and all, takes water from a deep well STILL have to pay a minimum electricity bill or the government would regulate his energy and tax him like if he were to be selling it. To us country folk that do not like to be taxed on our own property, this sort of regulation is going to be taken down- it'll only get worse when more ways to decentralize markets happen and we get our hands in them like 3d printing.

I'm naive and you can justify calling me a fool but this is modern day slavery, and that's what the article is generally touching upon. Not sure if the above was the best example, but to me it's the most relational.

We're obligated, enslaved, to fix many problems that we haven't caused on top of worrying about the elderly before we retire, as shown by some of the comments here- no problem, people had it harder back in the days..Especially here in PR. Have you seen Clint Eastwood's Super Bowl Half time commercial? That's what came to my mind after finishing reading this..

Besides showing an interest in a certain market by crowdfunding capital and displaying market interest how can one influence non statist capitalists to invest lets say in informing the majority of the Puerto Rican population to take the current issues we should really be focusing on seriously? I know my kind and they're not generally inclined to think on these things day by day but please be kind enough to criticize my philosophy. Focusing on mostly the pharmaceutical market, the general PR'an population won't stand a chance to adapt to this change of thought on survivalism..

Again excuse this if it's OT, this is my first post.

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#115

Since the beginning of the financial crisis the media has constantly been repeating that the housing market was key to recovery and that the government had to do things to help prop up house prices. As someone who would like to own a house in the future, I find it quite unfair that the government is helping to maintain bubble prices. It is yet another way for current homeowners to to extract as much money as possible…

Why do you want to own a house? Is it as an impediment to relocating? For the risk of a highly leveraged investment? Or so that you can spend time and money fixing leaking pipes on Tuesday evening and patching the gypsum board on Saturday? Ever notice how most small businesses deal with real-estate? Hint: they don't negotiate a thirty year lock-in.

A lot of other things can be an obstacle to relocating: wanting to have family close by, having put roots into a community you love. There are definitely tradeoffs to owning a home, but I've decided for me there's more upside than down.

I'm around halfway through the mortgage on my place and relish the thought that once it's paid, even if I eventually find myself between a rock and a financial hard place I'll have four walls and a roof and no obligation to anyone for them. I'll have a good 30 years (give or take) of earning potential left in me by that point which means I'll have plenty of disposable income on top of what I've been squirreling away all along for a retirement. Yeah, I've had to fix leaky pipes (and cursed the time spent doing it) but overall I find comfort in the thought that if current trends continue, I'll have a place to park FOREVER.

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#116
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Work keeps your brain sharp. I've met 80+ year old judges that can keep young lawyers on their toes peppering them with questions to test their arguments.

...as long as you don't run into any health issues that affect your cognitive capacity, and you are able to maintain a position that matches your -likely declining- abilities. I would like to think that I can look forward to retirement - travel, family, personal projects, etc. - without having to also continually worry over my status at work. But I'm not terribly optimistic.

I think the best plan is try to evolve your work over time into an area that you're happy. My goal by 70 is to be able to get up and go to a job where I'm excited and happy to be even at 70. My Dad is almost 70 and that's how he feels, his ambition is to keep doing the work he loves until he dies.

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#117
post #93
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's patently ridiculous for a person to spend half their life not working Why is this ridiculous? The idea that the poor should have leisure has always been shocking to the rich. In England, in the early nineteenth century, fifteen hours was the ordinary day's work for a man; children sometimes did as much, and very commonly did twelve hours a day. When meddlesome busybodies suggested that perhaps these hours were…

You are onto something here. Let me explain you what the problem is. The concept of work is relatively modern compared to the entire human history. Organized work is something that was needed to scale organized living, and growth of human population. Without agriculture, architecture, transport, communication and health care human kind wouldn't have made it till now. Hunter gatherers had it a little easy, each man fo…

wut?

Tribes have specialized warriors, and also would raid other tribes for loot and spoils of war which included slaves. This didn't need the creation of Kingdoms to achieve this. Man will come up with this at the proto-civ stage because other humans beings are the best tools.

You also are drawing some sort of line of intent, that hunter gatherers knew to move towards agriculture, AFAIK the data on how the transition occurred is spotty and is still being debated.

EVEN then, from tribal structures and from studying nomadis/hunter gatherers its clear that "men did work for others", at the very least for the good of the tribe, and often because the village headsman would be able to mobilize people to work on mutually beneficial tasks like say, a granary, or even a juju enhancing spirit walk.

Bulk food also is something of a recent phenomenon, if you look at the chart of human population growth its balooned since around 1950, and before that the total human population of the world was nearly a billion people.

And thats with the invention of the plough, harness, irrigation and so on.

While agriculture was massively advantageous compared to whatever we had before, it wasn't without its own pitfalls - such as famines, droughts, pests, bad crops and so on.

Finally your last para is at odds with the entire ethos of the USA for a large portion of its existence, that you could get somewhere with merit. Matter of fact its only in the recent past that this has stopped being true.

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably a contentious topic, but housing security is a useful thing. Owning a residence, and perhaps more saliently owning it without debt, provides a certain level of housing security that is quite precious when you are older. The other benefit of owning property is that you can use it to generate income when you're not using it. While being a landlord is a pain, if you're willing to give up some of the ret…

I own a house. I can't wait to sell it. For me, the house is one more thing to worry about. On the other hand, my apartment lease gives me no worries. If I was rich, I might like to own a house, but only for the freedom of doing whatever I want with it.

I cannot understand why leasing (or renting) can be considered superior to owning your own place. Sure it does prevent you from just moving on a whim - something i don't think people should be doing anyhow - but the money paid as rent is like throwing it into the sea!

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#119
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own a house. I can't wait to sell it. For me, the house is one more thing to worry about. On the other hand, my apartment lease gives me no worries. If I was rich, I might like to own a house, but only for the freedom of doing whatever I want with it.

I cannot understand why leasing (or renting) can be considered superior to owning your own place. Sure it does prevent you from just moving on a whim - something i don't think people should be doing anyhow - but the money paid as rent is like throwing it into the sea!

Rarely true if you account for a decent return on investment on the difference between a mortgage payment and rent for an identical place.

Re: Young People Are Screwed: Here's How To Survive

#120
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own a house. I can't wait to sell it. For me, the house is one more thing to worry about. On the other hand, my apartment lease gives me no worries. If I was rich, I might like to own a house, but only for the freedom of doing whatever I want with it.

I cannot understand why leasing (or renting) can be considered superior to owning your own place. Sure it does prevent you from just moving on a whim - something i don't think people should be doing anyhow - but the money paid as rent is like throwing it into the sea!

> the money paid as rent is like throwing it into the sea!

The same can be said of mortgage interest. The fair comparison to the renter with no savings is the homeowner owing the full value of the house to the bank, and the fair comparison to a mortgage-less homeowner is a renter with investments and savings equal to the price of the house they're in.

Better arguments for your position might be

1. Mortgage rates are lower than rental prices in many places,

2. Paying off a mortgage is "enforced savings". People leasing property mostly spend the difference instead of investing it.

3. Some kind of projection of house and rental prices rising more quickly than the market.

Post reply on HN