Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30 • Hacker News Board

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#181

Post by nkurz » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 11:40 PM UTC

hollerith wrote: post #125

rubidium wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said "A better comparison would be 30-years-olds of today versus 30-year-olds (whether the 30-year-old has or goes on to have children or not) of the past." This is exactly what they did and what the data shows. 50% of kids today make more than their parents, vs 90% of kids 60 years ago made more than their parents. I feel like we're missing each other points though...

Do see any material difference between these next 2 statements? "50% of people today make more than their parents" "50% of people today make more than people a generation ago made." If yes, do you see how the difference might be relevant to whether people today have it easier or harder than people in the previous generation?

1) You have a fine point that it doesn't make sense to compare the percentage of (people who might have children + people who might not have children) to (30-year-olds of a previous era who went on to have children). In isolation, an absolute number like "50%" only has meaning if we assume that there are no significant differences in earnings between parents and non-parents.

2) Others are pointing out that the message of the graph is not the absolute percentage, but the trend line. The graph purports to show that the chance of greater earnings of (30-year-old maybe parents) vs (their own definitely parents at age 30) has decreased relatively linearly from 90% to 50% over the last 50 years. This could be explained by a demographic change in who has children over the same time frame, but it's not absurd to assume that the dynamics have remained constant even though the differences between the groups are unknown.

3) I'd be wondering more about how they accounted for inflation, since the manner in which this is done would drastically effect the results. I think the question essentially boils down to "at a given decile of earnings, does the average person today have a better life than the average person 30 years ago?" I don't know how one could answer this rigorously.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#182

Post by q3r3qr3q » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 11:40 PM UTC

vijayr wrote: post #19

djb_hackernews wrote: post #10

Compound that with the percentage of income 30 year olds spend on housing, education, health care and child care compared to their parents and we have a recipe for disaster.

This is only going to get worse with software eating the world and automation of every possible task that we can. It has already started with companies like Amazon (in their warehouses) using robots extensively.

Didn't it start with auto makers using assembly line robots or long before then?

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#183

Post by gremlinsinc » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 11:41 PM UTC

vijayr wrote: post #90

eridius wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Up until we finally get our collective heads out of our asses and implement something like Basic Income.

That isn't going to happen easily. My experience: I've talked about this to many people (highly educated, smart people) - most of them are adamant on the idea that human beings absolutely have to work to deserve anything, even food and water. This might very well be anecdotal, but very few people get ideas like Basic Income intuitively. It would likely take tremendous amount to first make people understand, then acce…

I honestly feel basic income is a MUST have. I so much believe in it that I WANT the automation to come, I want to see the jobs disappear, I live for the day when robots do all the physical work and a job is optional--and we can pick and choose what we work on because having a roof over our head and food on the table, and healthcare is just a given.

We can be entrepreneurs, etc.. I have a ton of app ideas, but I work 45-50 hours a week and just don't have much time to implement anything. -- Even if we moved to 20 hours / week w/ lots of time for family, and leisure.

Mankind is supposed to rule the world, not be beasts of burden, and many are just that. Some horses live better than mankind. We have a friend who works at walmart and two other jobs, so his wife can stay home and take care of the kids. It's sad and pathetic - nobody should have to work over 40 hours just to have a house and home.

I think before that day comes there will be unrest and revolts, maybe even French revolution style, but in the end there has to be a better way.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#184

Post by gremlinsinc » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 11:43 PM UTC

hood_syntax wrote: post #135

FreedomToCreate wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All humans have a psychological need to be needed. The current way to best feel this is to provide income for yourself and your family through work, and provide a service for your employer. This is extremely satisfying for a majority of people. Take away work and these two things collapse. To get UBI to work, we need a new way for people to feel needed.

I disagree entirely that work is the best way to feel needed, and that feeling needed is necessary. I work because I have to, not because I care about working. If I didn't have to work, I wouldn't. I would spend time on personal projects and enjoying my life with my friends. Relationships are far better than work for "feeling needed". To be honest though, I don't care about being needed. I don't need to exist. I like…

I love my work, and hanging out w/ the other coders on slack, but I would prefer not being forced to work, I'd much rather it be a 'choice' not something thrust upon me, or that I could live off 20 hours per week and spend the other 20 working on prototypes for web and mobile apps.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#185

Post by gremlinsinc » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 11:45 PM UTC

fzzzy wrote: post #142

FreedomToCreate wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All humans have a psychological need to be needed. The current way to best feel this is to provide income for yourself and your family through work, and provide a service for your employer. This is extremely satisfying for a majority of people. Take away work and these two things collapse. To get UBI to work, we need a new way for people to feel needed.

Kids need parents.

Amen to this. We need basic income if for no other reason than to bring one parent home, I don't care if it's the father or mother, there should always be a parent available and at home.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#186

Post by gremlinsinc » Thu, Dec 08, 2016, 11:56 PM UTC

nercht12 wrote: post #175

vijayr wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't going to happen easily. My experience: I've talked about this to many people (highly educated, smart people) - most of them are adamant on the idea that human beings absolutely have to work to deserve anything, even food and water. This might very well be anecdotal, but very few people get ideas like Basic Income intuitively. It would likely take tremendous amount to first make people understand, then acce…

People feel a natural obligation to be rewarded for their work. "Don't work, don't eat". The fact is, giving people a small income makes them inherently lazy. Lazy people don't like to work, but they will do just enough to get by, so if you give them a min amount of $, they'll do nothing. Others will look at that and say, "How come they get money for being lazy?" It actually acts as demotivation for people who would…

What would you suggest to Walmart, Krogers, McDonald's workers and all Truck Drivers who will be displaced by automation in the next decade? Learn to code? Not everyone is cut out to be a coder, or has the money for education in the first place or the mentality to learn it online on their own.

Truck driver is probably the first job to disappear, this is also the #1 job in about 30 states. Truck drivers also touch many communities by travelling through po-dunk towns who's whole industry be it a couple mom and pop shops and a gas station IS because of truck drivers who frequent their route.

All of those communities will dry up, millions of truck drivers will be out of work. What do you expect people will do when they are starving, and the unemployment rises from 6% to 40-50%, by 2040?

There's currently an 83% chance that workers earning less than $20/hour will lose their job to automation in the future, and a 40% chance that those who earn between $20-40/hour will lose their job (forever to automation) in the not-to-distant future. Do you know anyone who falls in those ranges? Would you risk it all on 40-83% chance that your job will be here in 20-30 years?

What happens to the graduate who ends up graduating from medical school only to find out all doctors have been replaced by robots? They still have gargantuan loans and all, but zero employment options. Source: http://www.geek.com/tech/middle-class-workers-are-losing-the...

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#187

Post by malisper » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 12:00 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #63

matchagaucho wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the title seems sensationalized relative to the actual data. It looks like a stable regression towards the mean.

Was the title changed? Says "Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds Earn More Than Their Parents". Which is exactly what the article talks about... Though earning more than your parents was part of the American dream.

If you reword the title to "More than Half of 30-Year-Olds Earn More Than Their Parents" it sounds completely different.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#188

Post by seanp2k2 » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 12:02 AM UTC

RUG3Y wrote: post #151

mulmen wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Seattle and while I am aware that not everyone lives in a similar environment the concept of a minimum 5 acre lot staggers me. I consider myself lucky to have 600 square feet . What kind of area has these rules and who sets them? To me a lot with 5 acres is officially "the country" where I would expect very little to zero regulation of what you can build.

He's in Western Washington, but not too close to Seattle. To him it's "in the country" but it's right next to town. I live in a rural place, "in the country" means something entirely different to me.

My definition of "country" is having a yard big enough to throw a tennis ball for your dog as hard as you can, as far as you can, within your property, and not have it hit something. Just any linear stretch of maybe 150'. People in cities very rarely have that, unless it's some kind of billionaire hilltop mansion type situation. Many people can't even own a pet because their apartment disallows it.

Same thing would apply to shooting a gun on your property. If you can do it without the cops coming, you live in "the country" as far as I'm concerned.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#189

Post by mikeash » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 12:06 AM UTC

hajile wrote: post #14

About half earn more, about half earn less. Wouldn't that imply that the average earnings are about the same? If so, I don't know that I'd complain because that indicates stability.

Stability in worker incomes, while total wealth has grown substantially, means a lot of people are getting screwed. When you add in things like how health care costs are greatly outpacing inflation, it means a lot of people are really getting screwed.

Re: Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds in the U.S. Earn More Than Their Parents Did at 30

#190

Post by skybrian » Fri, Dec 09, 2016, 12:07 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #162

maverick_iceman wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll be supporting all the old people through Social Security/Medicare anyway.

I don't judge people who didn't or couldn't save enough for retirement and are living on SS and Medicare exclusively. I like Socialist safety nets of those sorts, and am happy to pay into them. One day I will be old and sick too. We all will be, except those who die early. I judge you if you didn't hold your government representatives accountable for excessive discretionary spending, which was borrowed out of Social…

Well, I hope you don't judge people for an accounting fiction.

Any treasury bonds held by the federal government (for example, by the Social Security) is money the government owes to itself and has no real-world effect. The only part that matters is treasuries held by private investors.

Less government spending in the past would mean lower government debt (owned by private investors) today. That's only real effect. You can blame people for running up government debt if you like, but might as well skip talking about Social Security.