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

The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

conradbastable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 269 posts

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#121

Post by qubax »

noelwelsh wrote: post #15

Modern societies are supposed to be organised for the benefit of all in society (broadly speaking; obviously there are cases when different people have desires that cannot be reconciled). This is why the government usually sponsors education, for example. All of society benefits from an educated population and hence all of society contributes to the cost of that education. This seems to have been lost in the US (and,…

> Modern societies are supposed to be organised for the benefit of all in society

That's a nice sentiment to hold, but that's simply not true. All societies are formed by the elite for the benefit of the elite. If others benefit in the endeavor, it's simply an accidental side effect.

Industrialized human society is no different than the industrial animal farm. The industrial animal farm doesn't exist for the benefit of the animals. It exists for the benefit of the people who own, run or rule the farm.

> This is why the government usually sponsors education, for example.

Modern education system in the US and UK and everywhere was created to indoctrinate the students into a particular belief system of the elite, produce future factory workers and to keep child labor from competing against adult laborers. It was one part to serve as innoculation against "wrongthink", one part to produce factory workers who can read simple instructions and to remove labor supply ( child labor ) from a society which couldn't produce enough jobs for its adults. A reason for the constant increase in education demands from jobs is simply because there aren't enough jobs to go around. A solution is to keep successive generations longer and longer in school and out of the work force. But a side effect of this is that students are indebted more and more. And debt is slavery as adam smith pointed out.

> I believe the start of the problem was the rise of neo-liberalism, holding the market and competition above all else.

The problem predates neoliberalism. Neoliberalism ( and neoconservativism ) is just national industrialism writ large ( international ). It's the natural progression from national industrialization of the past 200 years.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#122

Post by theandrewbailey »

> $180,000 on a 4-year degree in 2018 would’ve been a $160,000 downpayment on a house for my parents generation, plus the $20,000 four year degree.

$160k would buy the whole house! (If not, most of it!)

> Success only begins when you build enough wealth to pay for:

> Your own continuing education: $0 — $125,000

> A home for your family: $750,000 — $1,500,000 (depending on how far you are willing to move from a major urban center — but don’t move too far because the wages go down too)

> Education for your children: $180,000 — $325,000 (start at the bottom of the range if your kids are 18 today, move up accordingly)

> Medical expenses: $50,000 guaranteed between childbirth and insurance, more with pre-existing conditions or any large event

> Your own medical care as you age: $0 — $LOTS

I get the feeling that the author purposefully picked one of the worst places to build wealth with "average" incomes (which so happens to be where he lives). While these are bad, these prices aren't average.

I live in the rust belt and might be making some very large (read: expensive!) life changes in the next year or two. There is no way it's going to this expensive.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#123

Post by Raidion »

annabellish wrote: post #101
afpx wrote: post #56

Here’s a controversial perspective. Maybe most people’s expectations are too lofty, and their abilities much lower than the think they are. In 2000, less than 25% of the working popultion had a bachelors degree. Today, every young person I talk to expects to finish a Phd, JD, and MBA. And, now everyone wants to live in the trendiest (highest-cost areas). There are plenty of places in the US where a house can be purca…

What the linked article is trying to explain is that the opposite is true. It isn't that everyone wants to live in the trendiest areas, it's that they _have_ to in order to find a job that has any hope of paying off their debts fast enough for them to save up enough so that when the next huge expense comes through they can afford it... likely taking on more debt even so. It isn't that everyone wants a degree - certai…

I disagree. I think it would be interesting to do that same article, but replace the MIT tuition with that of a decent in state school, and replace the housing prices with those of a medium/large midwest city like Omaha, Cleveland, or Pittsburg.

Salaries don't scale like rent does. In Cleveland, you can get a 1 bedroom for around 900 dollars, in SF, that's 3.5k+. That means to maintain the same purchasing power and keeping monthly rent at 1/40th of salary, you'd need to earn 36k in CLE, but 140k in SF. 140k isn't out of reach in the Bay Area at all, but usually requires a college degree, while 36k in CLE is in reach of those without a college degree, and numbers twice that high are in reach of those with a STEM degree.

This means you're going to have more disposable income, not having to deal with 5%+ rent increases every year, pay less in the higher tax brackets, and be able to buy a house without paying nearly as much interest. All just because you stop trying to be the top 1% and live in some place that isn't NYC or SF, but is still in the top 50 largest cities in the US.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#124

Post by neuronic »

afpx wrote: post #56

Here’s a controversial perspective. Maybe most people’s expectations are too lofty, and their abilities much lower than the think they are. In 2000, less than 25% of the working popultion had a bachelors degree. Today, every young person I talk to expects to finish a Phd, JD, and MBA. And, now everyone wants to live in the trendiest (highest-cost areas). There are plenty of places in the US where a house can be purca…

> Unless you came from wealth, or you’re definitely in the top 1% of your peers, maybe set your expectations a bit lower.

Why should any of us set our expectations lower? Because you say so? Why is the best piece of the cake reserved to some 1% folks largely with inherited wealth? Why should 1 billion Chinese set their expectations lower? Because they happen to not be born in Silicon Valley and their father doesn't run a law firm in Manhattan?

This is called wealth inequality to the max and it will crash our societies sooner or later. Pseudo-meritocracies will eventually break their necks over this and the developing crisis of democracy is one step into that direction. 2008 proved that the system is utterly broken and since then we put on a few bandaids at best.

> There are plenty of places in the US where a house can be purchased for under $100k.

Sure, those places just don't have the jobs people strive after, for example to escape automation in the 21st century.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#125

Post by TomMarius »

gambiting wrote: post #42
TomMarius wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is absolutely not true. I am a citizen of the Czech Republic and if I stop being insured, e.g. because of changing my place of permanent residence, I'm not entitled to anything .

Then Czech Republic must be an exception in the EU - pretty much every other country that I lived in worked on the simple principle of "you are a citizen/resident = you are entitled to care". Even if you didn't make any payments ever(due to lack of a job, or being homeless or disabled for example) you would still be 100% covered.

It is not an exception, it's almost the same at least in Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Austria. It is not true that you'd be always covered - you'd be covered only if you're registered in the system and entitled to be a part of it (by the virtue of being a resident); if you have your residence outside the EU, you're entitled to nothing; if you have your place of residence in other EU country, you're entitled only to treatment of immediately life threating issues - you still need travel insurance to travel to other EU countries if you want e.g. dentist covered, also you can't injure yourself doing sports and such, that would not be covered at all by the basic insurance.

It's true that you'd be covered even if you never paid but you have to be entitled to be a part of the system - and thus you're insured. Also the money for treatment will be later demanded from you, on top of insurance payments and interest (personal experience); of course there are options for the socially less able (the government pays insurance for them, that's why it might seem free) but as a software engineer, no it's not true.

If you read my comment properly you'd know that I'm talking about uninsured people.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#126

Post by TomMarius »

cronz wrote: post #60
TomMarius wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. Not everywhere and every time. See my other reply.

Well of course if you are not a EU resident you don't get free childbirth. This is a country not a resort hotel.

Yes exactly - I specifically said "if you don't have insurance". I really don't see your point, you're saying the same thing I do.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#127

Post by TomMarius »

3D13158219 wrote: post #26
TomMarius wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It costs around the same in Europe if you don't have insurance. I'm pretty sure it's the same in the USA - this is the rate that would be charged to your insurance company. Rates are way lower for uninsured people if you ask them and tell them that you're not insured (I got a bill lowered 10 times when I broke my hand); and of course most people have some kind of insurance. To the people downvoting: please read prope…

No idea why you believe this. I've had babies in two European countries and didn't pay a thing for either of them.

I believe it because the law and EU regulation explicitly states it.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#128

Post by TomMarius »

gambiting wrote: post #46
TomMarius wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe there are countries where you can not be a part of the public system in some cases, such as changing your permanent residence outside the country.

Well, ok, I see what you're getting at - but unless you moved to outside of EU, you are still fully covered by the country where your new permanent residence is. If you moved out of Czech Republic to Spain for example, just get an EHIC card from Spain and you can get treatment wherever you go in EU, including Czech Republic.

Yes, but I was talking about the case when you're not insured. Btw the treatment you're entitled to in other EU countries (outside the issuer country of your insurance card) is limited (but of course childbirth is covered) and you need travel insurance (it's cheap in EU, around 2 euro per day), especially if you're doing sports as any injury done during sports is not covered at all outside your country.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#129

Post by kasey_junk »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #4
jstanley wrote: post #2

> Google tells me that the most common reason for hospitalization in the US is childbirth. Thankfully, here in San Francisco, that would only set me back $15,000 Surely this is not true? Does having kids just bankrupt ordinary people in the US or what? I'm not asking about exceptional cases, like what is the normal way of dealing with having to pay $15,000 just to have a baby climb out of your body, when I'm assuming…

Even with a good health care package, a friend paid $10 thousand dollars (his maximum deductible) for the first year of one of his children, due to infant allergies.

That is not what most people consider a 'good' health care package. That would be considered a 'high deductible' plan.

When people talk about 'good' health care plans in the US they tend to think of traditional low deductible PPO. Those tend to have family deductibles in the $500-1k range.

Though the employee premium differences might add up to more than 10K in the face of a 'good' health care plan so its largely not relevant to the argument about health care costs in a nation vs nation way (though you'd want to include tax burden for health insurance in that case).

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#130

Post by kasey_junk »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #21
TomMarius wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It costs around the same in Europe if you don't have insurance. I'm pretty sure it's the same in the USA - this is the rate that would be charged to your insurance company. Rates are way lower for uninsured people if you ask them and tell them that you're not insured (I got a bill lowered 10 times when I broke my hand); and of course most people have some kind of insurance. To the people downvoting: please read prope…

In Denmark it costs 0, also since we're raising the next generation of payers into the tax system we get paid money quarterly (about $700 [guesstimate] for the first couple years decreasing over time, our 9 year old gets a governmental stipend of $200 per quarter [another guesstimate]) I guess what I'm trying to say as someone who lived a lot of years in the U.S - why the hell they gotta screw you so hard there? on e…

You (or one of your countrymen) pay for it with taxes, that isn't the same as it costing $0.

Now, it likely a) does cost a lot less in Denmark than in the States in real terms and b) paying for it with taxes might absolutely make the most operational sense. But it isn't free.

Post reply on HN