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

New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

randalolson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 320 posts

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#181

Post by forgetfreeman »

ambicapter wrote: post #148
wnc3141 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are extractive and inclusive economic institutions. democracies tend to guarantee the latter, we are rapidly pursuing the former.

I don’t know about that, I feel like one of the issues when one person-one vote democracies is that it means the greater population demographic (aka the Boomers) hold a relatively higher proportion of the vote and thus can majority rule everyone else.

The mistake you're making here is in the assumption that voters have any meaningful input on policy. Given the overwhelming majority of policy at both the state and federal level is drafted by lobbyists this assumption seems questionable at best.

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#182

Post by trimethylpurine »

epistasis wrote: post #171
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would say aversion to allowing economic growth is the true cause of inequality. People say that right up until someone wants to do something and then it's all "not in my back yard" and "won't somebody think of Alex Jones and his gay frogs" or whatever their line is. I'd say nobody is willing to put their money where their mouth is but it's not money. They'd made more money with growth. It's speculative bullshit "w…

I think the direction goes the other way, people are NIMBYs so they come up with reasons to justify why it's OK to block other people from living close to them. The idea "oh but a richer person than me benefits" becomes the reason for blocking housing, eliding the fact that a poorer person benefits, the true thing the NIMBYs try to prevent. At least, that's true in my area. People that already have housing, are comfo…

When they build apartments to increase the density the prices don't go down on the dense units. The builder sets the price and he is his own competition because an appraisal requires just 3 comps. He has 250 comps in his pocket because he built and set their price.

The only thing it does to be anti "NIMBY" is aid in unchecked price hikes on "low cost" high density housing that none of us can afford.

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#183

Post by forgetfreeman »

paulddraper wrote: post #163
throwaway27448 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just our young—that just receives disproportionate attention. The entire country is being actively looted under the guise of "economic growth". Anyway, increasing supply isn't going to solve our many problems leading to widespread homelessness and financial insecurity, but the Ezra Klein dunces aren't ready for that conversation yet.

Increasing housing supply will absolutely decrease housing prices. That’s so obvious it’s nearly a truism. Rate of new houses is below the rate of new households, and it’s been that way for years.

"Increasing housing supply will absolutely decrease housing prices." True if it's the government building the houses, otherwise you hit a point where construction margins tank well before market saturation is reached. In practice new housing developments have a tendency to drag local real estate prices up (see also: gentrification).

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#184

Post by WalterBright »

epistasis wrote: post #74
throwaway27448 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just our young—that just receives disproportionate attention. The entire country is being actively looted under the guise of "economic growth". Anyway, increasing supply isn't going to solve our many problems leading to widespread homelessness and financial insecurity, but the Ezra Klein dunces aren't ready for that conversation yet.

I would say aversion to allowing economic growth is the true cause of inequality. It creates austerity which means the wealthy do just fine while those with less suffer and overpay and transfer what little they do have to the wealthy. Degrowth is a fundamentally unequal program which causes massive inequality and suffering. Only with growth does power lessen for those with the most.

> aversion to allowing economic growth is the true cause of inequality.

Inequality is the result of allowing economic growth, i.e. freedom.

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#185

Post by paulddraper »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #183
paulddraper wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasing housing supply will absolutely decrease housing prices. That’s so obvious it’s nearly a truism. Rate of new houses is below the rate of new households, and it’s been that way for years.

"Increasing housing supply will absolutely decrease housing prices." True if it's the government building the houses, otherwise you hit a point where construction margins tank well before market saturation is reached. In practice new housing developments have a tendency to drag local real estate prices up (see also: gentrification).

You’re saying that prices are bounded by construction costs.

Sure, as with every other good.

But there’s a long way to go between current property prices and raw construction costs.

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#186

Post by WalterBright »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #101
epistasis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say aversion to allowing economic growth is the true cause of inequality. It creates austerity which means the wealthy do just fine while those with less suffer and overpay and transfer what little they do have to the wealthy. Degrowth is a fundamentally unequal program which causes massive inequality and suffering. Only with growth does power lessen for those with the most.

I don't see aversion to growth. I see aversion to filling to pockets of the top 0.1% at the expense of the bottom 90%. A rising tide raising all ships sounds great and all, until you notice the tide seems to only be rising on one side.

[flagged]

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#187

Post by WalterBright »

materielle wrote: post #113
azan_ wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't basically every decile getting richer (i.e. able to afford more things) thanks to economic growth?

What if I don’t care about affording more things? And instead want to live in an ethical society that prioritizes stability and universal access to housing, healthcare, and education?

It's perfectly legal for you and like-minded people to set up a commune, and create the society you want.

Or join an existing one.

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#188

Post by bsder »

epistasis wrote: post #86
jvanderbot wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We" in GP was the previous generation, not a nefarious evil cadre. The prior generations followed jobs to highly desireable areas, affordable only because they had the expertise and education to get the high paying job in the first place. Every person that moves there lifts the ladder a little higher behind them just due to market factors. I feel that only works so long. Without new emerging areas offering high wage…

The only reason SF seems inaccessible is that the prior generation down zoned and said "no more housing here, we don't want growth." Which worked out well for them but robs young people and immigrants of climbing the same ladder they climbed. Building new clusters of expertise and economic opportunity is extremely hard, nearly impossible, everybody has been trying to replicate the Bay Area's tech success for decades…

> Building new clusters of expertise and economic opportunity is extremely hard, nearly impossible, everybody has been trying to replicate the Bay Area's tech success for decades and even with the housing problems it simply hasn't happened anywhere else.

Sure it did. And Silicon Valley is just the current nexus.

In the mid 1800s, Pittsburgh was the startup technological nexus for chemistry and engineering around steel. In the early 1900s, Detroit was the startup technological nexus for car and machine manufacturing. In the 1960s, Silicon Valley became the startup technological nexus due to Fairchild and the Traitorous Eight.

The "trick" to creating a startup technological nexus is for the price of a startup to be in the range that experienced, generally young (roughly 25-35), mid-level technical professionals can fund.

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#189

Post by horns4lyfe »

epistasis wrote: post #58

The story here isn't college grads as much as young people in general. We are eating our young. We stopped building new housing, which turns housing into a transfer of wealth from those who don't have it (the young) to those who have been holding it (the not young). We have eliminated entry level positions, saddled college graduates with massive amounts of debt by defunding universities, and created great security fo…

We haven’t eliminated entry level positions, we decided it was better to import foreign labor than to train up new grads. Because we’re dumb, and in some cases tribal.

Re: New U.S. college grads now have higher unemployment than the average worker

#190

Post by scruple »

ryeguy_24 wrote: post #131

I keep going back to the debate with myself. Do I give my now-young kids 500K in an ETF in 14 years or do I send them to college? And the debate is not about how they will spend it (I can hold on to it too), it’s about whether to spend the money or just pass on the wealth to them. People have given me tons of reasons why college is good for them - independence, etc etc. I can find a way to give them independence with…

I have the same sorts of thoughts rolling around in my head, and also agree that the college path is looking grim right now.
Post reply on HN