151–160 of 213 posts
How can we reconcile "everybody is poor now" with all the teenage millionaires and 22 year olds moving to California for six figure salaries? Is everything we read here such an extreme case that the rest of the world has no chance of catching up or competing (except in the überextreme sport of Startup)?
In 1985 the average age of a car on the road was about 6 years. In 2012, the average age is over 11 years. This has a number of obvious implications on new-car purchasing behavior of young people: 1. It's much easier to buy a used car now since they have more years of service in them. 2. Getting a hand-me-down from a relative is possible. 3. Culturally, getting a new car is much more rare so there is less pressure to…
I would add that used cars are increasingly more reliable and easier to vet. There are also more resources available to help identify lemons as well.
CarFax was pretty much directly predicted by Akerlof's "The Market for Lemons".
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)…
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…
(1) The variety of mid-high end luxury cars (i.e. $50k+), and the number of such cars sold, far exceeds the choices available in 1980. For example, you now have a variety of choices if you want to drop >$50k on a pickup truck. (2) We simply have more disposable income to spend on cars. That we’re so rich we can afford to spend a higher minimum wage multiple on a frivolous expense isn’t really a bad thing.
This of course also overlooks the fact that today, right now, you can buy a brand new car for about $7,200. (I just bought a Ford Ranger for about that, but there are numerous other choices in that range as well.) Even these very cheap cars are so much better in every tangible and intangible metric than even “decent” 1980's cars that it’s laughable. Step up to cars in the $15k range, and you’re able to buy cars that are better in just about every way, except for upholstery, than even luxury cars in from 1980.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trend for mass transit is to remove options from travelers, thus making itself less useful to us. As such, it's hardly worth funding. [1] That's not to say that it must be inherently so. Just that, so long as these projects are typical government projects that are expected to go over-budget and over-deadline with no repercussions, they will be used as a tool for political favors and cronyism, at our expense. [1]…
Portland's transit problems stem from the fact that most of the region's job growth over the past 20 years has taken place away from downtown. On a given morning, there are almost as many commuters driving to jobs in the west suburbs as driving to jobs in the city. Of course, the light rail doesn't go to where the jobs are in the suburbs. Not without the need to walk considerable distances or transfer to a bus.
I think that's central to the point of my linked citation.
People stubbornly insist on buying homes where they want to live, rather than where bureaucrats claim they should. For a transit strategy to have any success, it needs to address what people are actually going to do -- or at least not pretend that it is doing so.
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…
When I owned a car it was simply a means to an end and not an identity. A method of getting from one place to another. Living in the city (I've lived in several) the car gets beat to hell, so having a new car is largely impractical without an off-street parking space. I also have absolutely no desire to live in distant cul-de-sac style suburbs, and I'd prefer to walk to the store if I can, even though I'm at the point where I'm thinking about buying a house and raising a family.
So whatever assumptions you're making about minimum wage or driving an older car or walking / biking are not applicable to me, and pretty much anyone in my circle of friends in the demographic which spans both coasts and multiple cities.
In the age of smart phones, the car has ceased being a vital communication tool for young people. There's no need to drive to the mall to see if Paul is there hanging out. A text will let me know that he's at Joel's party instead. Another text and Steve will swing by in his car. The housing situation is another matter. There's a glut. Credit is tight. Jobs are scarce. And housing prices are going down. Millenials are…
You're right about smart phones, but I'm not so sure about housing. Credit is ridiculously cheap, and housing everywhere is on sale. If you have a job, why wouldn't you buy as much house as you can afford?
I'm pretty much a spot on example of what this article's describing; I live in DC where the average person in my peer group is still single, makes This is COMPLETELY different from the experience that my friends back home in my small city in Missouri have, many of whom are married and buying houses for a song (The car thing fits this pattern too, a car in DC (and especially NY) is a total luxury item. A parking spot alone in my building is more than my rent was in MO. In MO, it's a necessity.
It's not that the author is right or wrong, they're just using a very broad brush to talk about a specific (albeit usually trend-setting) group of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right about smart phones, but I'm not so sure about housing. Credit is ridiculously cheap, and housing everywhere is on sale. If you have a job, why wouldn't you buy as much house as you can afford?
> If you have a job, why wouldn't you buy as much house as you can afford? Because interest rates are likely to go and then I wouldn't be able to afford that mortgage any more? I'm kinda thinking about buying a house, so I filled in an online mortgage calculator to work out what sort of money i'd have to work with. It said i'd qualify for a mortgage that was twice as high as what I think I need to get somewhere reall…
Or maybe it's just the generation that realizes that the supply of oil is finite.
That's the reason young people aren't buying houses? Try again.
Commute costs, viable living distance, heating and cooling bills, construction costs, amenities (pools, landscaping, toys including boats and RVs), and consumer goods are all directly tied to energy costs.
Housing is an expensive, illiquid, geographically fixed investment. You're investing not only in the property and structure, but the neighborhood, local job markets, and/or anticipated commute costs.
Oil prices have had a very direct effect on the present and future value of suburban and exurban housing. Both positive (in the era of cheap energy, 1945 - 1974), and negative (as prices increased from the 1970 oil shocks onward).
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…
Ah, but the shift in housing desirability also plays into this. Those few places in the US that do have great walkability/bikeability/public transit are booming and in huge demand.
I think many young people do aspire to walk and bike everywhere, which is why they aspire to be able to live in vibrant, much-denser-than-suburban environments. That this is true is obvious when you compare housing prices. People pay a huge premium for it.
Biking almost everywhere is awesome if you're fortunate enough to live in a place that makes it safe and convenient to do so. I take trips by bike at least four times more often than by car, purely by choice since I own both.
When we visit family out in more typical America, my young son gets frustrated by so much time spent in a car seat. He's "spoiled" by always being able to interact much more with his surroundings, whether walking, in his stroller, or on my bike with me.
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…
a.) Nope, none of those. Two incomes though, of which combined is higher than the median, but not by that much... b.) Not quite the ghetto, though some would say all of Tacoma is the ghetto. Still, there are much, much worse areas around here. c.) Not soul crushing. We pay about 1400/mo for our mortgage, which isn't much more than rent around here. (we had a small two bedroom apartment for 750, so it is possible to go cheaper though)