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

Explore how people in the U.S. aged 18 to 34 have changed over four decades

census.socialexplorer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 86 posts

Re: Explore how people in the U.S. aged 18 to 34 have changed over four decades

#21

Post by disputin »

kaoD wrote: post #18
tsunamifury wrote: post #5

These numbers are really grim, and considering the job market only gets more cruel a few years after the top end of this age bracket, it makes it hard for young people to have a lot of hope for the future. Granted, maybe some of them are reflective of age-agnostic trends but still! Start in higher debt then make less than ever! As a young person looking at these numbers I realize I am squandering my blessings as a hi…

Welcome to "staying competitive". Here at Spain (and generally Southern Europe) we've been told over and over again that we have to stay competitive, which is just an euphemism for working more and earning less (i.e. becoming Europe's China). In a globalized market with a (still) steadily growing population, competition is growing and therefore salaries are shrinking. It's happening in all industries (e.g. tech firms…

Seems to me it's the government which needs to stay competitive, not the workers, ie regulation and bureaucracy.

Re: Explore how people in the U.S. aged 18 to 34 have changed over four decades

#22

Post by RadioAndrea »

bpodgursky wrote: post #13
hnriot wrote: post #10

I was surprised at the number who had a degree was less than the national average for California. I guess there's a lot of immigrant workers who don't achieve higher education levels which skews the perception living and working in the valley. States like Virginia and Kansas beat the national average, yet not california, that's really sad.

Someone has to be below average. Dunno why it's sadder to have unemployed Californians than unemployed Virginians.

Even within the state of Virginia, look at the difference between Fairfax County and Portsmouth. It's comforting to think that your peers are "beating" the national average, and I think that something we miss when we read these graphs. A reminder about both ends of an average is something we need more in life.

Re: Explore how people in the U.S. aged 18 to 34 have changed over four decades

#23

Post by kaoD »

disputin wrote: post #21
kaoD wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to "staying competitive". Here at Spain (and generally Southern Europe) we've been told over and over again that we have to stay competitive, which is just an euphemism for working more and earning less (i.e. becoming Europe's China). In a globalized market with a (still) steadily growing population, competition is growing and therefore salaries are shrinking. It's happening in all industries (e.g. tech firms…

Seems to me it's the government which needs to stay competitive, not the workers, ie regulation and bureaucracy.

What a cliché.

EDIT (to elaborate): IMHO economy (like most things) is all about trade-offs. I know the states and bureaucracy are cumbersome, but they offload risk from individuals into society (which isn't always a bad thing).

I respect your views on deregulation (and share them to some extent), but your phrase is really a cliché and does not address my comment (since deregulation is orthogonal to labor competition).

Re: Explore how people in the U.S. aged 18 to 34 have changed over four decades

#24

Post by humanrebar »

Aside from the economic indicators, which are already being discussed here, the numbers for "never married" (up), "veteran" (way down), and "foreign born" (up) really jump out as trends. "Living with a parent" (up) is also a trend, but perhaps one more directly tied to the employment economy.

For better or worse, all these trends have had and will have important societal impacts. Why don't we see more discussions on this sort of thing? Other issues, like who's paying what in taxes, seem less important by comparison.

Note that I'm not making qualitative judgments on the people that fall into different categories. The numbers just jump out to me and I wonder why they aren't discussed more in conversations about who millenials are, what they think, and how they will approach the society, culture, and government.

Re: Explore how people in the U.S. aged 18 to 34 have changed over four decades

#25

Post by aswanson »

kleer001 wrote: post #9

35+ y/o here. Every time I hear things like this I call up my mother and thank her for having me earlier than later. Also, I did not like the interface. I'd rather all the data was just there in one map.

35+ here as well. We still feel the effects of lower opportunity for youth; our entire system (I assume you are based in the US) is based on 7 percent growth in perpetuity for our standard of life to continue. This growth, in turn, is based on younger workers contributing to the system as old farts like us age out. What hurts them will definitely hurt us.

Re: Explore how people in the U.S. aged 18 to 34 have changed over four decades

#26

Post by [deleted] »

bpodgursky wrote: post #13
hnriot wrote: post #10

I was surprised at the number who had a degree was less than the national average for California. I guess there's a lot of immigrant workers who don't achieve higher education levels which skews the perception living and working in the valley. States like Virginia and Kansas beat the national average, yet not california, that's really sad.

Someone has to be below average. Dunno why it's sadder to have unemployed Californians than unemployed Virginians.

[deleted]

Re: Explore how people in the U.S. aged 18 to 34 have changed over four decades

#27

Post by VLM »

microtonal wrote: post #20
zhemao wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A significant portion of that age group is still in school, hence not employed nor unemployed. They should really just show the unemployment rate, not the employment rate. But yeah, the median income drop and poverty rate increase is pretty sad.

I wonder about the median income. Another statistic says that more people have at least a Bachelor degree. Consequently, more people start working at a later age, reducing the median income. On the other hand, new employees with a degree should earn more. It would be interesting to know the interaction between the two.

"On the other hand, new employees with a degree should earn more."

Its the other way around, if the jobs don't change but the number of degrees granted increases, then assuming degree holders cluster at the higher end, building downward would have to result in average salary of a degree holder decreasing over time.

Another interesting statistic is lifetime income. If you have a job that does not require a degree, and spend 10% of your working life earning a degree instead of earning income, your lifetime income will be about 10% lower. Its actually worse because starting wage for a coffee barista or waiter is the same, but presumably toward the end of your career you'll make more at a better job, but a degree holder will have retired for years 36-40 whereas a non-degree holder will continue to earn income for the full 40 years at the higher 36-40 yr rate. You'd see this a lot more in the trades, obviously 4 extra years of union master payscale is worth more than 4 extra years of journeyman.

Re: Explore how people in the U.S. aged 18 to 34 have changed over four decades

#28

Post by zackify »

jboggan wrote: post #11
hnriot wrote: post #10

I was surprised at the number who had a degree was less than the national average for California. I guess there's a lot of immigrant workers who don't achieve higher education levels which skews the perception living and working in the valley. States like Virginia and Kansas beat the national average, yet not california, that's really sad.

I almost guarantee that any HN reader lives in a section of California that is radically unrepresentative of the state as a whole.

I live in Fresno County, it's very representative sadly

Re: Explore how people in the U.S. aged 18 to 34 have changed over four decades

#29

Post by juliangregorian »

disputin wrote: post #21
kaoD wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to "staying competitive". Here at Spain (and generally Southern Europe) we've been told over and over again that we have to stay competitive, which is just an euphemism for working more and earning less (i.e. becoming Europe's China). In a globalized market with a (still) steadily growing population, competition is growing and therefore salaries are shrinking. It's happening in all industries (e.g. tech firms…

Seems to me it's the government which needs to stay competitive, not the workers, ie regulation and bureaucracy.

Thank you for submitting HN's most hackneyed comment.
Post reply on HN