The Cheapest Generation • Hacker News Board

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#171

Post by ef4 » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:16 PM UTC

roc wrote: post #11

> "What if Millennials’ aversion to car-buying isn’t a temporary side effect of the recession, but part of a permanent generational shift in tastes and spending habits?" It's hardly surprising that people without the money for cars are of the opinion they aren't so important anyway. Not being able to afford things tends to draw into sharp relief the difference between wants and needs. And I realize Ford's marketing d…

> If millenials still choose to settle down to raise children in the suburbs...

I think that's an open question. Anecdotally, there are an awful lot of young families in my particular urban environment, mine included. Most intend to stay if they can, some give up and decide they "need" a bigger house than they can afford here.

As far as schools, this area is past the point of critical mass where there are enough high-earning, highly-educated families staying that they've driven the school quality up. Plus there is a huge and vibrant community of home schoolers to work with if you want a DIY education.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#172

Post by elemeno » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:18 PM UTC

shanelja wrote: post #83

shanelja wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can attest to that, I live in the UK, public transport in the north is okay but far from optimal. I wish I could afford my own transport, but my low paying tech job (I'm a 4 year self taught junior developer at a small web development company) can barely pay my rent, let alone afford the ridiculous amounts of money I would have to pay for car insurance (I think I was quoted around £2,100), my driving lessons and a…

One of my friends spent some time in California this year interning with Google and he said that while public transport around California was bearable, when he spent some time in New York he found it completely useless. One of the qualms I have with English public transport is that over 55's get completely free transport, (I have no issue with them of course) whereas 15 - 21 year olds tend to pay extra in my area, so…

In London at least, you pay half price for public transport if you're 16-18 (and free buses if you're in education) and a reduced price if you're 18+ and in education.

Being neither of those, I get to pay a hell of a lot more! I'm glad I've got a decent job since I still wince each month when I renew my Oyster.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#173

Post by anamax » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:22 PM UTC

MengYuanLong wrote: post #57

Swizec wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> younger generations don't see a house or a car as a symbol of status or wealth, merely as something to be used, as a necessity And then there are fixies - impractical bikes that cost 700 euro simply because they are cool. Whereas you can get a practical bike for less than 200 euro. Maybe it is that we are cheap, so those things that cost beyond a certain threshold (like cars and housing) just need to work, whereas…

You may feel fixies are impractical but they carry benefits. The primary one being better power transfer. Second, you can often make a cheap fixie by finding an old frame, refurbishing it, and replacing the rear hub. Yes, you can buy them for $700+ but unlike iPhones, there are a number of ways to obtain one for cheap. Further, a bike that costs less than $200 is certainly not a bike I would buy for commuting. Having…

> You may feel fixies are impractical but they carry benefits. The primary one being better power transfer.

Huh? The "chain loss" is the same during power. There's some friction loss when you're not pedaling a "not fixie" but there's also a "friction loss" in your legs when you're spinning just to keep a fixie's wheels turning.

> Second, you can often make a cheap fixie by finding an old frame, refurbishing it, and replacing the rear hub.

A coaster hub isn't that much more expensive and the user-experience is much better for most people. (That said, a coaster hub with some gears is reasonably cheap.)

And, replacing a hub is work (or expensive). It's often easier/cheaper to just find a rear wheel.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#174

Post by kapitalx » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:25 PM UTC

ZoFreX wrote: post #24

ganley wrote: post #7

Aside from those whose livelihood depends on car sales, who have an obvious incentive not to believe it, why is it so hard to believe that people might simply not want to own a car? The whole tone of this article seems like: It appears that millennials don't want to own cars, but that can't be right, can it? If I could get away with not owning one, I certainly would. As it is, I spend as little time in it as possible…

I thought that assumption throughout the article strange, too. A factor no one else seems to have mentioned (which admittedly only applies to transport, not housing) is that public transport is, overall, getting better. In London I have an Oyster card which actually gets me all the way to my dad's house too, even though he lives well outside London. Something like this just would not have been possible in the 90s, an…

Public transportation in America might as well be non-existent, and American suburbs which is where the largest portion of the country lives in, are un-walkable. You can't do anything if you don't have a car. I think this isn't clear to people who live in the few very large cities in the US, or live elsewhere in the word where public transportation does a good job of getting you around in a timely manner.

To give you an example, I live in San Jose area. To get to downtown san jose, it'll take me less than 10 minutes in a car on the high way, 45 minutes on the bike through the streets, or 1.5 hours on the bus.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#175

Post by andreasvc » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:27 PM UTC

hieronymusN wrote: post #3

nodata wrote: post #2

Single page version: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/the-chea... I don't like The Atlantic's title: it implys what is happening as negative.

This is because our current economy is skewed towards consumption with real estate and cars as the primary metric. I agree, I don't see it as a negative. I'm Gen X and I don't own a house or car.

Consumption is the driving force of modern capitalism generally, not particularly related to the current economy. Capitalism relies on surplus; the problem with this of course is that is wasteful but it seems we don't really have an equally successful alternative.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#176

Post by mnicole » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:28 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #54

ganley wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only real threat from lasting attitude change, is that perhaps millenials will vote for more transit projects and subsidies over more car/road projects and subsidies and thus make it more feasible in more areas to not own cars. We can only hope.

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]…

I live in Portland and use public transit every day. On every article about Trimet on OregonLive, there are people that cite the same numbers you do, that say that these services are useless and that nobody uses them.

Until you do use them, and you realize that every bus is full, every Max car is standing room only and for as slow as the streetcar is, it is still packed every time. Considering the growth rate in this city, it isn't surprising that numbers look like they're going down.

I complain about the continuously, almost monthly, rising costs of a Trimet pass every month, but $100/mo compared to the $600+ I was paying for insurance and car payments (and not even including maintenance) has allowed me to live a more comfortable lifestyle. Forcing me to get a bike and living in a city that embraces its bicyclists has even made it a more healthy lifestyle as well.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#177

Post by pjungwir » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:32 PM UTC

Although I'm sure most of this effect is due to the economy and student loans, I wonder how much of it comes from people having children later and less often. Doing without a car or home becomes trickier once you have kids. I was disappointed the article didn't bring up children at all, because I'd be curious to hear something on it one way or the other.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#178

Post by specialist » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:39 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #111

specialist wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? AEI? Minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. Debt financed consumption. You're trying too hard. This stuff isn't that complicated.

The numbers all come from the American Housing Survey and Consumer Expenditure Survey. Are you claiming they are incorrect? Or are you merely stating your dislike for AEI?

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I rather like the AEI. It serves a purpose. Kind of like a honeypot.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#179

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:42 PM UTC

The difference between Gen Y / Millennials, and Gen X, is that the younger generation is taking a hard look at the big consumer purchases and deciding that they're either not worth it, or are simply unaffordable.

Gen X matured into a world not quite as harsh, but generally took on huge amounts of debt to fund first school (not quite so much as current students), vehicles, homes, and marriages. Only to be hit by multiple periods of very uncertain economic times (recessions in 1989-92, 2001, 2007-2009), each of which was followed by increasingly weak recoveries. The early 1990s recovery not really picking up steam until 1995-6, the 2000s in 2005-6, and the most recent recession still not really over.

In the early 1990s, it was popular to call Gen X the "slacker generation", which I suspect was largely due to the economic conditions of the time. A few years later, they were the dot-com generation, beavering away in the first generation of Internet start-ups.

The 2000s are already being called a "lost decade". The 2010s are well on their way to much of the same. Some sectors, notably tech, have been countertrending, which may affect YC/HN impressions. But overall, economic trends have been downward.

Re: The Cheapest Generation

#180

Post by tatsuke95 » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 4:42 PM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #164

tatsuke95 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "What incentive do we have then, to not forcibly extract that wealth from the previous generation?" We do have the incentive. And we will extract that wealth. But it takes time, since "they" currently have the political power. What you describe is what is happening in the real world. Reform everywhere so they get the pensions and benefits, but nobody after them will. This is happening both publicly and privately. E…

>We'll have the last laugh, though. Eventually the boomers will need to divest. At that point they'll find out we don't have the money to buy their assets. Hadn't thought of that. Might be quite funny... I suppose they'll just give it to their offspring. So for now... kill rich kids? Just brainstorming here.

It's interesting. I believe it's going to be a crisis, at least here in Canada, where our boomer bulge is the largest in the world.

Much like our southern neighbours, our soon-to-be-retirees don't have much in savings, and the vast majority of their net-worth is tied up in their homes. Unlike the US, we haven't had a housing price adjustment yet. So these boomers are counting on having the current value of their home as their future retirement fund. But as we've learned, that number may as well be fairy dust until someone hands you a cheque.

So what happens when these boomers go to retire, and they find out nobody can afford (or wants) to buy their $500,000 McMansion? When every boomer actually has half, or worse, the amount of money to retire as they thought?