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

The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 974 posts

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#191

Post by zpeti »

messe wrote: post #119
qwerty1234599 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High tax rates are what causes this. You are effectively giving away half your wage to sustain a completely unknown person leeching off the government.

This is blatantly false. Income tax on higher earners in the UK has decreased since the 1970s/1980s when IIRC the highest tax bands were over 70%, if not higher.

Yet in the UK the amount of tax paid by the 1% is the highest ever (34%), 42% of adults pay NO income tax.

And the tax take as a proportion of GDP is 34.4%, the highest EVER.

We are living in the most taxed time in history with the rich contributing the most ever. Not the impression you get from people complaining about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/13/richest-bri...

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#192

Post by btbuildem »

Cro_on wrote: post #18

I grew up on the farm, but have spent most of my adult life living in big cities. But I take a month or so home most years for a bit of farm work / harvest celebration. Corono got me good traveling SEA in February, and have been now living and working at home since March. I could have never thought about living here beforehand. At least I always think that twenties and thirties are for the movement of the city, and t…

You're lucky to have access to that

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#193

Post by shuckles »

feralimal wrote: post #175
Philip-J-Fry wrote: post #94

I'm my early 20s and in the UK. I earn more than my Dad who is in his 50s. He managed to get a house, have money left over for an expensive hobby, decent car, the odd holiday etc. I'm a 90th percentile earner. Will 95+ percentile earner in a few years time. Yet it feels like I am not as well off as I should be. I don't live in an expensive area either. Yet I need to save so much money to even have the opportunity to…

Give it a few months and I think house prices will fall!

Home prices falling because many people’s incomes have gone to $0 is bad for affordability.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#194

Post by [deleted] »

zpeti wrote: post #37

I think people need to start realising just how incredibly much the government is now stepping in at each of these crises to make them as smooth as possible. But there is a downside to this. You are not allowing the normal economic effects to happen because you are wanting to keep everything as it is, but then guess what, the status quo stays, and anyone joining the ladder is finding it increasingly difficult. What's…

[deleted]

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#195

Post by war1025 »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #140
war1025 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "poor" people (less than $100,000/year) How anyone making $100k can be considered "poor" is beyond me. No wonder everyone on the West coast thinks being a Millennial sucks.

Are people in the Middle/South getting jobs?

I live in Iowa.

At least in my peer group people seem to be doing pretty well.

From my perspective here, Millennials aren't having any harder of a time integrating into society than anyone before them did.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#196

Post by war1025 »

racl101 wrote: post #138
war1025 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "poor" people (less than $100,000/year) How anyone making $100k can be considered "poor" is beyond me. No wonder everyone on the West coast thinks being a Millennial sucks.

Just like how you can live in a castle in middle America that costs $250K. It's just part and parcel of living where everyone else wants to live.

As someone in middle America with a not-quite castle that I paid $100k for, I'm perfectly happy with that trade off I guess.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#197

Post by onion2k »

feralimal wrote: post #175
Philip-J-Fry wrote: post #94

I'm my early 20s and in the UK. I earn more than my Dad who is in his 50s. He managed to get a house, have money left over for an expensive hobby, decent car, the odd holiday etc. I'm a 90th percentile earner. Will 95+ percentile earner in a few years time. Yet it feels like I am not as well off as I should be. I don't live in an expensive area either. Yet I need to save so much money to even have the opportunity to…

Give it a few months and I think house prices will fall!

House prices will never fall significantly. As soon as a house enters the market at anything below the going rate it's bought by a landlord or a rental company. This will keep house prices high forever.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#198

Post by xenonite »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #113
Philip-J-Fry wrote: post #94

I'm my early 20s and in the UK. I earn more than my Dad who is in his 50s. He managed to get a house, have money left over for an expensive hobby, decent car, the odd holiday etc. I'm a 90th percentile earner. Will 95+ percentile earner in a few years time. Yet it feels like I am not as well off as I should be. I don't live in an expensive area either. Yet I need to save so much money to even have the opportunity to…

I’m in my mid fifties and I have never had a company pension, defined benefit or contribution. I saw my first house decline in value by 25%. We had interest rates peaking at 15%. I didn’t have student loans but only because I didn’t go to university, just like 90% of my peer group. Unemployment was much higher than it is now and schools were teaching subjects for obsolete careers. It wasn’t as rosey as it is often po…

Okay, but we’re you in the 90+ percentile like the OP? What happened to those that were in that range 30 years ago?

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#199

Post by jayd16 »

_qulr wrote: post #158
wonderwonder wrote: post #11

Millennials face a very real risk of being a lost generation financially. They have endured 2 major, years long recessions, and now the Covid pandemic coupled with social isolation and massive unemployment that does not appear to have an end date in sight. Housing is more expensive for them than prior generations, wages are stagnant, school is expensive and social conflict is also currently on deck. WW2 was of course…

Can we please stop with the term "Millennials"? The article talks about 18-29 year olds. The most widely accepted definition of Millennials is people born 1981 to 1996, which would be 24-39 year olds. Not the same. Regardless, the financial differences between people the exact same age are always vastly larger than the financial difference between so-called "generations".

Hmm the article is not about Millennials but perhaps the comment was. I don't think GenZ has "experienced" two years long recessions like Millennials have.

Re: The majority of 18- to 29-year-olds in the US are now living with their parents

#200

Post by mediaman »

augustt wrote: post #60
zpeti wrote: post #37

I think people need to start realising just how incredibly much the government is now stepping in at each of these crises to make them as smooth as possible. But there is a downside to this. You are not allowing the normal economic effects to happen because you are wanting to keep everything as it is, but then guess what, the status quo stays, and anyone joining the ladder is finding it increasingly difficult. What's…

> Let things fail, so that the waste can get burned off I guess the waste here is people who simply can not pay for food or housing? What a naive take.

Yes. It's the sort of take by people who have made zero effort to study history or economics.

"Keep the budgets tight" was the mantra in the early 30s in response to the depression. It took a World War that killed millions of people (and was -- surprise! -- a major artificial government stimulus) to get out of it.

Yes, providing monetary liquidity and fiscal stimulus during times of extreme stress is not purely good. It can have an effect of keeping some companies alive that perhaps should not be. That is bad and we should try to minimize it in the context of a recovery effort. But the fact that it's not perfect is not a reason to claim that burning everything down and creating a decades-long horrible depression in which many die of starvation, and that cripples the country, is a preferable alternative.

They think that if you let everything burn down then green shoots will pop up and everything will be happy and folks will rebuild and it'll be better and the government oughta get its snout out of our business and just let pure capitalism run its course and...

Post reply on HN